FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

iamanengine

TillyG wrote: »

Hi All,

I am sitting FE1's in October. Contract, Property, Equity and either Criminal or Tort. Can anyone offer suggestions between Criminal and Tort?

Best of luck to all who are sitting exams at present.

Criminal is a far smaller course so it's much easier to study for.

Doser

Daly29 wrote: »

Hi, for Company I am doing the below but I think I am taking a big risk. Any advice on an easy topic/s with a decent shout of coming up? Think the boat has sailed on reforms for the Act. It's been 4 years in operation now. I should know the below to a decent level Tuesday, one or two I can bluff on might be needed. Thanks and good luck all!

Directors Duties (banking on a straight forward problem)
SLP (banking on a straight forward essay)
Disposition of Assets (hoping for a problem on advising a Liquidator on some dodgy transactions)
Share Transfer (a simple problem refusing membership be nice)
Section 212 Oppression
Winding Up
Restriction of Directors
Crystalisation Events

Straight forward questions on Directors Duties and SLP is every company law students dream since the FE1 exams began! That should do you though. I've posted before, I'm covering:
Corporate Capacity and Authority
Directors
Shares
Shareholders
Borrowing and Charges
Examinership
Receivership
Liquidation

Feel free to PM me if you've got any worries.

b.anna

Doser wrote: »

Straight forward questions on Directors Duties and SLP is every company law students dream since the FE1 exams began! That should do you though. I've posted before, I'm covering:
Corporate Capacity and Authority
Directors
Shares
Shareholders
Borrowing and Charges
Examinership
Receivership
Liquidation

Feel free to PM me if you've got any worries.

I still think we might see a question about changes brought it by the Act.

Also starting to feel like I know nothing after going through some exam papers

iamanengine

Does anyone have a quick summary of Wall v National Park & Wildlife Service in relation to Occupiers?

I swear I had notes on it but they seem to have disappeared

lawless11

iamanengine wrote: »

Does anyone have a quick summary of Wall v National Park & Wildlife Service in relation to Occupiers?

I swear I had notes on it but they seem to have disappeared

I just know that it's a hillwalker that slipped/got injured on a path in the park, but for policy reasons it was held that there was no liability as it was an experienced hillwalker and that the path had a social utility I think!

Daly29

Thanks a mill for that. Seems somewhat similar. Think I've covered what I see as most likely qs so I'm guesing I'm not going to have a Eureaka moment. Doubt the examiner is trying to summon his inner rain man looking at exam grid patterns when he is setting the exam. Probably just take a stab at going over one other and hope my ones come up..... Time to get stuck into Tort in an hour or so.

Doser wrote: »

Straight forward questions on Directors Duties and SLP is every company law students dream since the FE1 exams began! That should do you though. I've posted before, I'm covering:
Corporate Capacity and Authority
Directors
Shares
Shareholders
Borrowing and Charges
Examinership
Receivership
Liquidation

Feel free to PM me if you've got any worries.

nimcdona

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I'm after looking up Palfrey and yea, different facts but similar concept!

That's how I understood it yea, but what would S 72 apply to so?

Also, for successive squatters, if in a problem question squatter A left and the place was empty and then squatter B moved in a month later, would the clock have reset or would it just have paused if the owner had not reasserted title?

s.72 isn't specified in my manual or notes it just gives slight details on how the limitation period may be extended so I'm just taking it as not of great importance, so I wouldn't worry too much about it (I know its nice to be able to get your head around everything though so I get you)

In relation to successive squatters, it's never specified in problem questions or in any of the material i've read about the amount of time that lapses before the second squatter takes up residence but I think its pretty safe to assume that once its in a month or so of each other and theres no stopping of the clock by the paper owner that it just continues.

In Mount Carmel Investments Ltd. V Peter Thurlow ltd it just says he allowed the possession to be taken over and second squatter obtained title by 12 years AP for both. I don't see it being specified in a problem q re the amount of time between though but if it did i think i'd just apply the Mount Carmel case and presume that the second squatter built on AP of first squatter

Daly29

You could right :-) I thought it would be a good one to have since they always ask the same thing. Was having second thoughts then.

Daly29

You could right. I thought it would be a good one to have since they always ask the same thing. Was having second thoughts then. Hopefully you know more than it seems. Good luck :-)


QUOTE=b.anna;109634318]I still think we might see a question about changes brought it by the Act.

Also starting to feel like I know nothing after going through some exam papers [/QUOTE]

Doser

Daly29 wrote: »

Thanks a mill for that. Seems somewhat similar. Think I've covered what I see as most likely qs so I'm guesing I'm not going to have a Eureaka moment. Doubt the examiner is trying to summon his inner rain man looking at exam grid patterns when he is setting the exam. Probably just take a stab at going over one other and hope my ones come up..... Time to get stuck into Tort in an hour or so.

Director's Duties are the bread and butter of the company law exam it seems. No need for Eureka moments, you'll be fine! Though I wouldn't say no to a nice S.212 to settle us all.

bigtophat13

nimcdona wrote: »

s.72 isn't specified in my manual or notes it just gives slight details on how the limitation period may be extended so I'm just taking it as not of great importance, so I wouldn't worry too much about it (I know its nice to be able to get your head around everything though so I get you)

In relation to successive squatters, it's never specified in problem questions or in any of the material i've read about the amount of time that lapses before the second squatter takes up residence but I think its pretty safe to assume that once its in a month or so of each other and theres no stopping of the clock by the paper owner that it just continues.

In Mount Carmel Investments Ltd. V Peter Thurlow ltd it just says he allowed the possession to be taken over and second squatter obtained title by 12 years AP for both. I don't see it being specified in a problem q re the amount of time between though but if it did i think i'd just apply the Mount Carmel case and presume that the second squatter built on AP of first squatter

That's exactly it, just tryna grasp everything, all I need to do is say in some cases of mistake and maybe she'll assume I know

Yeah I think you're right to just think it continues, would show a good eye if you noted the courts would have to consider it though!

jamesob123

bigtophat13 wrote: »

This is definitely true also. Nevertheless, much as he'd love to be as unpredictable as possible there are still core aspects of the course he can't avoid like Gen Neg, DoC, Causation, VL and then he has to pick some of the specific ones like Occupiers, Passing Off, Defamation, Employers Liability. That's what I'm counting on anyway, don't forget with 4 11s you only need an attempt at a final question!

I like those Mathematics!

iamanengine

So, last day of study tomorrow for those of us blessed to be doing tort. A massive day for a lot of us I'm sure, personally for me I think the cramming that's done tomorrow will be the difference between passing and failing!

What are people doing for the last day of cram? Considering most of us are covering 12+ topics, you can't really afford to spend too much time on one topic. Say you spent an hour learning off ordinary negligence, an hour on land torts and so on, by the time you would cover each of your topics it will be almost time for sleep and there's a good chance what you've covered earlier in the day will have slipped from your mind.

I was thinking of doing like 15min blitz sessions for each topic, just reading off all of the sub headings and cases, try to memorise them and repeat them back with a mental tick that you know the facts/point of law. Once 15mins is up move on and repeat.

Thoughts on last day study technique?

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

So, last day of study tomorrow for those of us blessed to be doing tort. A massive day for a lot of us I'm sure, personally for me I think the cramming that's done tomorrow will be the difference between passing and failing!

What are people doing for the last day of cram? Considering most of us are covering 12+ topics, you can't really afford to spend too much time on one topic. Say you spent an hour learning off ordinary negligence, an hour on land torts and so on, by the time you would cover each of your topics it will be almost time for sleep and there's a good chance what you've covered earlier in the day will have slipped from your mind.

I was thinking of doing like 15min blitz sessions for each topic, just reading off all of the sub headings and cases, try to memorise them and repeat them back with a mental tick that you know the facts/point of law. Once 15mins is up move on and repeat.

Thoughts on last day study technique?

Something similar to that, the most barebones of notes I'm covering with my hand and going through subheadings and calling out cases, if I can get them all in a row I move on!

My biggest worry is my body clock has sleep time at 3am and up time at 10/11!

Daly29

Condensing the last 2 topics of my Company notes. As well as a notebook with condescend notes I have one with the title of the topic and the case law/a name of author/statute - nothing else.

Starting tort in a about an hour and again writing condescned notes in one notebook and ust the case names and statue and name of author only in other notebook. Sleep and wake up to drilling those two note books into my head.

That's the plan anyway.

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Something similar to that, the most barebones of notes I'm covering with my hand and going through subheadings and calling out cases, if I can get them all in a row I move on!

My biggest worry is my body clock has sleep time at 3am and up time at 10/11!

bigtophat13

Daly29 wrote: »

Condensing the last 2 topics of my Company notes. As well as a notebook with condescend notes I have one with the title of the topic and the case law/a name of author/statute - nothing else.

Starting tort in a about an hour and again writing condescned notes in one notebook and ust the case names and statue and name of author only in other notebook. Sleep and wake up to drilling those two note books into my head.

That's the plan anyway.

Yup, very like my style, just lists of cases and if you need to go reference the long notes, can get very unnerving when it's not sticking though as you get so caught up in the lists!

bigtophat13

For tort and DoC for the actions of third parties, is it usually down to control which you had over them? So in Doody v Clarke he was driving the car but that wasn't enough, then in Breslin v Corcoran he left the keys in the car but it wasn't fair and he wasn't in control of the thief? Then for all of the children cases it's usually either a parent's control or a teacher - so would it be fair to say the duty is not from the blood relationship with the child but rather the relationship of control over them?

lisac223

Could someone please give me a quick summary of the rules re disclosure of risks/informed consent in medical negligence? I'm confused as to whether for elective surgery you must disclose all known risks or just risks that involve serious pain? And then for non-elective procedures am I right in saying that only material risks must be disclosed?

Thank you!

lmsc

would anyone have some brief notes on realisation of corporate assets that they could send me? Can swap stuff for constitutional, EU, equity and contract!

Leraf

It’s started to snow in Dublin ðŸ˜

Leraf

Also, does anyone have a short definition of the difference between powers and objects and a case summary of rolled steel? My manual is scarce on info

iamanengine

lisac223 wrote: »

Could someone please give me a quick summary of the rules re disclosure of risks/informed consent in medical negligence? I'm confused as to whether for elective surgery you must disclose all known risks or just risks that involve serious pain? And then for non-elective procedures am I right in saying that only material risks must be disclosed?

Thank you!

Material Risks

Montgomery Case - Whether a reasonable person in the patients position would be likely to attach significant to a risk. Must take reasonable care to ensure the patient is aware of any material risks involved

Elective - 2 Approaches
Professional Standard Approach (UK)
Reasonable Patient Approach (US/Canada)

Walsh v Family Planning Services - CJ opted for PSA but majority opted for RPA

Geoghegan v Harris - Kearns J opted for RPA. In an elective procedure the practitioner must disclose all known risks of grave consequences or severe pain, no matter how remote.

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

Material Risks

Montgomery Case - Whether a reasonable person in the patients position would be likely to attach significant to a risk. Must take reasonable care to ensure the patient is aware of any material risks involved

Elective - 2 Approaches
Professional Standard Approach (UK)
Reasonable Patient Approach (US/Canada)

Walsh v Family Planning Services - CJ opted for PSA but majority opted for RPA

Geoghegan v Harris - Kearns J opted for RPA. In an elective procedure the practitioner must disclose all known risks of grave consequences or severe pain, no matter how remote.

Fair to say with non-elective we're at Montgomery level and have been for quite some time too right? Most my cases are actually based around elective.

Also, does anyone know of any big cases recently that affect tort law majorly, just in the last day we've mentioned Wall v National Parks and Wildlife Services which is excellent for Occupiers and Montgomery changed Englands view on consent. Anything else major?

Vegetarian2017

ally1234 wrote:

I’m hoping weather will be ok! I’m traveling from Limerick early Monday morning for tort. Due to family commitments cannot travel Sunday night before. Ohhh the stress is unreal at this point! Knowing my luck I’ll be snowed in Monday morning when I try to leave my house.

Townton wrote:

Anyone here know if its possible and if so how likely one is to get an extension to the five year period once you pass all fe1's. I heard they were handing them out left right and centre during the recession. Just wondering how likely it is as it will influence me to sit my last exam now or in the next 18 to 24 months.

bigtophat13 wrote:

Fair to say with non-elective we're at Montgomery level and have been for quite some time too right? Most my cases are actually based around elective.

bigtophat13 wrote:

Also, does anyone know of any big cases recently that affect tort law majorly, just in the last day we've mentioned Wall v National Parks and Wildlife Services which is excellent for Occupiers and Montgomery changed Englands view on consent. Anything else major?

bigtophat13 wrote:

Fair to say with non-elective we're at Montgomery level and have been for quite some time too right? Most my cases are actually based around elective.

bigtophat13 wrote:

Also, does anyone know of any big cases recently that affect tort law majorly, just in the last day we've mentioned Wall v National Parks and Wildlife Services which is excellent for Occupiers and Montgomery changed Englands view on consent. Anything else major?

There is a case for nuisance ucc /esb case, HC judgment would have changed the law significantly only was overturned by CoA. Well recent as in last year but wasn't in my manual you may already have it.

bigtophat13

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

There is a case for nuisance ucc /esb case, HC judgment would have changed the law significantly only was overturned by CoA. Well recent as in last year but wasn't in my manual you may already have it.

I knew of it but actually hadn't included it so good shout, getting nervous now that there's a couple I don't know. Hard to keep up to date with tort in comparison to the likes of constitutional.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Family Property:

Am I right in saying that it's probably safe to pay less attention to direct & indirect contribution / presumed resulting trusts?

The examiner seems to nearly always focus on the FHP Act 1976 and the FLA 1995?

iamanengine

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Fair to say with non-elective we're at Montgomery level and have been for quite some time too right? Most my cases are actually based around elective.

Also, does anyone know of any big cases recently that affect tort law majorly, just in the last day we've mentioned Wall v National Parks and Wildlife Services which is excellent for Occupiers and Montgomery changed Englands view on consent. Anything else major?

Yep for non-elective Montgomery is the leading case as far as I know. My only other case under that is Healy v Buckley where D discharged his duty, he warned her of the materials risks and that was sufficient even though she had a mistaken belief her condition was worse than it really was.

stressssedout

Could anyone please tell me the topics that came up in equity in the 2 sittings in 2018? My grid only goes to 2017

Pyggg

Trivial question but is there a cloak room in the red cow where you can put a bag?
Or do people just leave their stuff outside?

Gunslinger92

Pyggg wrote: »

Trivial question but is there a cloak room in the red cow where you can put a bag?
Or do people just leave their stuff outside?

No cloak room, just leave it outside!