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

Pyggg

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

No cloak room, just leave it outside!

Thanks, just was wondering because was planning on bringing my laptop. Might leave it at home so!

Gunslinger92

Anyone think SLP could come up as that problem where you're asked to advise on the advantages and disadvantages / the consequences of incorporation as a company?

iamanengine

Are there clocks in the exam rooms? I assume there are but just wanna make sure, left my watch at home, disaster!

sapphire309

iamanengine wrote: »

Are there clocks in the exam rooms? I assume there are but just wanna make sure, left my watch at home, disaster!

Yes. If you wear glasses though remember to bring them because the clocks can be far away sometimes

Daly29

I doubt it, did't come up last sitting so I'm guessing it will appear as a standard essay. Total speculation by me obviously.

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Anyone think SLP could come up as that problem where you're asked to advise on the advantages and disadvantages / the consequences of incorporation as a company?

lawless11

Anyone would have handy cases for pre-established DOC, can't get my hands on what I want:
-solicitor/client
-doctor/patient
-parent/child
(+ other important RS if you have!)

nimcdona

Would people think for property that:

Succession,
Ap
Easements
ownership and possession i.e. finding
Registration
Co-ownership

would be enough? I did family ages ago but feel like my time might be better spend being confident on the other topics than re-learning family can't decide

Tommybojangles

Does anyone have an up to date constitutional grid they wouldnt mind sharing? it's my long shot this time so really only narrowing down now

Daly29

Yep. You are hoping that one of finding, co -ownership or Reg comes up. It would be enough for every year as far as my exam grid goes back.

nimcdona wrote: »

Would people think for property that:

Succession,
Ap
Easements
ownership and possession i.e. finding
Registration
Co-ownership

would be enough? I did family ages ago but feel like my time might be better spend being confident on the other topics than re-learning family can't decide

sapphire309

I'm struggling to understand how Summary Approval Procedure can come up as a full question in Company... There's not really any case law on it, and surely you'd just be writing out the procedure as outlined in the Act? Isn't that simply just an exercise in copying and pasting?

b.anna

sapphire309 wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand how Summary Approval Procedure can come up as a full question in Company... There's not really any case law on it, and surely you'd just be writing out the procedure as outlined in the Act? Isn't that simply just an exercise in copying and pasting?

It came up before as a full question, think it was in 2017. In the exam report it said that people should outline the main activities from the Act and then add a few little bits. Some activities were available to companies under previous act I think it was voluntary winding up and financial assistance. No case law to it (I think) Wouldn't be the worst question to get.

lisac223

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.

That's brilliant thank you!

Yohnathan

**Constitutional**:
Anyone else leaving out Right to Silence, Right to Jury Trial and Due Course of Law. They are quite big and don't come up every year. Thoughts?

Company Law:
I see that some people need the Companies Act still. Probably won't be of help really but if anyone can get it from me in Drogheda, I am happy to lend it to them.

nimcdona

Daly29 wrote: »

Yep. You are hoping that one of finding, co -ownership or Reg comes up. It would be enough for every year as far as my exam grid goes back.

Grand thank you, fingers crossed it stays the same so

mariealice

Hi,

Don't know if this had been answered already but could anyone please tell me what came up in Property in October 2018 please?

Also if anyone has any ideas on what to cut out for contract it would be appreciated?

Best of luck to those doing tort tomorrow!

lawlad101

mariealice wrote: »

Hi,

Don't know if this had been answered already but could anyone please tell me what came up in Property in October 2018 please?

Also if anyone has any ideas on what to cut out for contract it would be appreciated?

Best of luck to those doing tort tomorrow!

1. Easement essay
2. Adverse possession problem q
3. Extrinsic evidence and wills essay
4. Co ownership problem q
5. Freehold covenants in 2009 act essay
6. Succession (formalities) problem q
7. Note on any two of bare licences, proprietary estoppel or contractual licences
8. Family property problem q (I think?)

Supreme!Fox

Does anyone know the earliest time you can drop legislation in at? Does it open before 9?

I can't drop it in the day before but I presume the earlier you hand it in by on the day of your exam, the more chance you have of getting it back for the start of the exam?

Gunslinger92

Supreme!Fox wrote: »

Does anyone know the earliest time you can drop legislation in at? Does it open before 9?

I can't drop it in the day before but I presume the earlier you hand it in by on the day of your exam, the more chance you have of getting it back for the start of the exam?

Not sure what the earliest time is, but you won't have the legislation for the start of the exam if you give it in the morning of, you'll be waiting an hour or so for it

bigtophat13

For Tort, if we were to get a VL problem dealing with sexual abuse, would ye be inclined to focus exclusively on those type of cases to look concise or would you flesh it out with the general cases as that would be so short?

z6vm1dobfnca3x

S.3 NFOAP Act 1997 - Assault causing harm

Is consent relevant?

My manual says that one can consent to assault causing harm.

But I have notes which say a person cannot consent to assault causing harm as per the Dolny case.

bigtophat13

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

S.3 NFOAP Act 1997 - Assault causing harm

Is consent relevant?

My manual says that one can consent to assault causing harm.

But I have notes which say a person cannot consent to assault causing harm as per the Dolny case.

Consent irrelevant, isn't built upon S2.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Consent irrelevant, isn't built upon S2.

But is assault causing harm not just S.2 assault + harm? i.e. the consent element of the constituent offence is relevant?

City Colleges Manual: "Under the 1997 Act, however, absence of consent is an element of the simple assault offence, which is constituent element of aggravated assault offences as a consequence. This means it is now possible to consent to the infliction of harm."

It then goes on to say that if R v Brown were before the Irish courts today, the accused would have a full defence?????

lawless11

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

But is assault causing harm not just S.2 assault + harm? i.e. the consent element of the constituent offence is relevant?

City Colleges Manual: "Under the 1997 Act, however, absence of consent is an element of the simple assault offence, which is constituent element of aggravated assault offences as a consequence. This means it is now possible to consent to the infliction of harm."

It then goes on to say that if R v Brown were before the Irish courts today, the accused would have a full defence?????

I think it's in further sections about defences, one type of assault has no requirement of consent, so you can't in consequence invoke a defence of consent to it. Don't have my notes rn so can't recall if it's the one causing harm or grievious harm.

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

For Tort, if we were to get a VL problem dealing with sexual abuse, would ye be inclined to focus exclusively on those type of cases to look concise or would you flesh it out with the general cases as that would be so short?

Well taking into account that you still would probably have to establish the employee/employer relationship, briefly mention the two course/scope tests before heading onto the specific sexual abuse/harassment/bullying tests, I think that would be enough. Plus this examiner specifically seems to hate rambling even more than the others so...

z6vm1dobfnca3x

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Consent irrelevant, isn't built upon S2.

lawless11 wrote: »

I think it's in further sections about defences, one type of assault has no requirement of consent, so you can't in consequence invoke a defence of consent to it. Don't have my notes rn so can't recall if it's the one causing harm or grievious harm.

You guys are actually right - thanks. I can see the SC's reasoning in other notes that I have which expressly state that consent is not relevant for S.3 assault.

I have noticed a number of anomalies like this in the City Colleges manuals where there is essentially serious mis-information around principles like that.

Has anyone else noticed that or am I just crazy? I have up-to-date manuals btw.

There is no question about S.4 assault btw - all that needs to be shown there is that the accused caused serious harm to the victim.

lawless11

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

You guys are actually right - thanks. I can see the SC's reasoning in other notes that I have which expressly state that consent is not relevant for S.3 assault.

I have noticed a number of anomalies like this in the City Colleges manuals where there is essentially serious mis-information around principles like that.

Has anyone else noticed that or am I just crazy? I have up-to-date manuals btw.

Yep they have some serious mistakes sometimes in them, you are not crazy. It's a matter of double checking, spotting weird things :x. (For the price paid for the courses for those who do hum...)

z6vm1dobfnca3x

lawless11 wrote: »

Yep they have some serious mistakes sometimes in them, you are not crazy. It's a matter of double checking, spotting weird things :x. (For the price paid for the courses for those who do hum...)

Yeah - it's a joke TBH.

I assume most people pay for the courses as they want to be given a manual they can rely on to contain everything they need to know so that they don't have to double check everything!!!

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Well taking into account that you still would probably have to establish the employee/employer relationship, briefly mention the two course/scope tests before heading onto the specific sexual abuse/harassment/bullying tests, I think that would be enough. Plus this examiner specifically seems to hate rambling even more than the others so...

Exactly my fear, but I still think a little more than necessary rather than a little less than necessary is best, and explain your logic in your answer.

bigtophat13

In what case would one use Polemis analysis of damages in tort? Trespass to the person and land for one. What else? I've read conflicting stuff about Rylands, anywhere else I'm missing?

lawless11

bigtophat13 wrote: »

In what case would one use Polemis analysis of damages in tort? Trespass to the person and land for one. What else? I've read conflicting stuff about Rylands, anywhere else I'm missing?

Strict liability, Rylands & trespass I have in my notes.