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

bigtophat13

Well that's an overwhelming yes for the highlighting I guess! good point if there's a lack of case law but hey, he's gonna figure that out if it's the case anyhow! Might as well make him happier?

Red bulls don't do it, caffeine pills are where it's at

Daly29

Sigh, I ain't going to learn this sh"t unconscious so time to make the last push then study for Company tomorrow evening. Good luck all :-)

Doser

Daly29 wrote: »

Sigh, I ain't going to learn this sh"t unconscious so time to make the last push then study for Company tomorrow evening. Good luck all :-)

Best of luck! Remember, plenty of people have been in your shoes before and plenty more will follow. This time 2 weeks you won't remember any of the negative feelings when the FE1s are done! It'll all be over soon, one way or another! :cool:

Vegetarian2017

Tort
quick question re nuisance. Tree falls onto neighbours property and owner didn't move it so neighbour chopped it up and used as firewood. Owner annoyed advise owner of tree if has cause of action? Can't see any cases or in my notes that relate to this aspect. As in the owner is usually yo blame. would it be mixed with damages ie damage to property? It under nuisance don't have to hand recall seeing yesterday

Breacnua

Matthew died last month from a severe heart attack, leaving a net estate worth €500,000. Matthew made a will in 2005. The only bequest in the will was one of "€50,000 to my best friend, Paul Simpson". However, in the will, the figure "€50,000" has been crossed out and the figure "€100,000" written above it in black pen (the rest of the will had been typewritten). Matthew's solicitor now admits that there was a mistake in the drafting of the will. The week after Matthew had first given instructions as to the terms of the will, the solicitor's secretary had received a phone call from Matthew saying that he felt he should leave more money to his dear friend Paul and asking the solicitor to change the amount of the bequest to Paul Simpson to €100,000. Unfortunately, the secretary, who was leaving to go on holidays that day, completely forgot to pass the message on to the solicitor. The solicitor is not sure how the figure of €100,000 came to appear on the will but believes that it is in the testator's handwriting. One of the witnesses to the will, Jenny, was cohabiting with Paul when the will was executed and the couple were married two months later.
Matthew was a bachelor and had no children. His parents both died twenty years ago. However, he was survived by one of his sisters, Julie, with whom he had lost touch. His other twin sisters, Jackie and Ellie, died ten years ago. At the time of Matthew's death, Jackie was survived by her children, Jack and Jill, and Ellie was survived by her two grandchildren, Tom and Jerry.
Advise as to the proper distribution of Matthew's estate.



Julie, with whom he had lost touch -> does her share go to the state?

lmsc

Best of luck to everyone sitting tort today!

Quick question, you can definitely hand in legislation the morning of the exam, yes?

Leraf

lmsc wrote: »

Best of luck to everyone sitting tort today!

Quick question, you can definitely hand in legislation the morning of the exam, yes?

Yes, you get it back about 30/40 minutes into the exam which can be distracting but you can definitely leave it in on the morning. Ive done it every time

Gunslinger92

Hope tort goes well for ye!

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Cannot believe I'm having to ask this now but my City Colleges manual does not even mention the four corners principle, armchair principle, patent or latent ambiguity so I'm only finding out about these now...

Are Rowe v Law / O'Connell v BOI still the authorities in Ireland re extrinsic evidence?

Where does latent ambiguity fall into this as according to O'Connell v BOI and the four corners principle, if the the wording is clear and unambiguous then EE cannot be introduced?

Thanks.

sapphire309

Would it be naïve to leave out Receivership? I see a lot of people here covering it, but I'm getting to the stage where I have to cut topics and I haven't looked at receivers yet. It came up last sitting so I'm hoping he'll give it a miss this time .... ?

Gunslinger92

sapphire309 wrote: »

Would it be naïve to leave out Receivership? I see a lot of people here covering it, but I'm getting to the stage where I have to cut topics and I haven't looked at receivers yet. It came up last sitting so I'm hoping he'll give it a miss this time .... ?

I'm the exact same as you, haven't done it yet. I reckon liquidation is due up. I might do a page on it just in case argh

nuac

All the best to all exam candidates.
Happiest days of your lives, etc

sapphire309

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

I'm the exact same as you, haven't done it yet. I reckon liquidation is due up. I might do a page on it just in case argh

Can I just clarify on this, because I have been getting so bogged down on this. Does Liquidation consist of the 3 processes of winding up (members' voluntary, creditors' voluntary, court ordered) + inability to pay debts + 'just & equitable' requirements? Or is there more?

And then you have the additional topic of Liquidator's powers after a winding up order - so unfair preference, onerous disclaimers etc and this includes post-commencement dispositions and validation of dispositions.

Have I got this right?

Does a Q ever come up about listing the priority in terms of distribution of assets? So you'd just go down the list of secured creditors, preferential creditors, etc. and cite the statutory provision relating to each?

decco201

Congrats to anyone who did Tort today, anyone want to confirm what was in the paper so I at least know I was on the right track

lawless11

Is it just me or was the paper extra specific/rough except the defamation problem question?

Gunslinger92

sapphire309 wrote: »

Can I just clarify on this, because I have been getting so bogged down on this. Does Liquidation consist of the 3 processes of winding up (members' voluntary, creditors' voluntary, court ordered) + inability to pay debts + 'just & equitable' requirements? Or is there more?

And then you have the additional topic of Liquidator's powers after a winding up order - so unfair preference, onerous disclaimers etc and this includes post-commencement dispositions and validation of dispositions.

Have I got this right?

Does a Q ever come up about listing the priority in terms of distribution of assets? So you'd just go down the list of secured creditors, preferential creditors, etc. and cite the statutory provision relating to each?

As far as I know, yes you do have that right. I'm not sure about your second question, sorry, but I have the last 5 or 6 papers and don't recall seeing anything like that on any of them

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Is it just me or was the paper extra specific/rough except the defamation problem question?

Yip, would have adored an employer's liability question only it was so specific I had 5 or 6 cases on systems only 🀷ðŸ»*♂️

iamanengine

That was brutal omg

Off the top of my head

Causation ?
Medical Negligence
Nervous Shock ?
Purpose of Tort
Liability of Local Authorities ?
Employers Liability
Defamation
Damages

vid36

iamanengine wrote: »

That was brutal omg

Off the top of my head

Causation ?
Medical Negligence
Nervous Shock ?
Purpose of Tort
Liability of Local Authorities ?
Employers Liability
Defamation
Damages

Was question 3 not Wilkinson v Downton

iamanengine

vid36 wrote: »

Was question 3 not Wilkinson v Downton

I thought it might have been but wasn’t sure! Didn’t answer it

bigtophat13

vid36 wrote: »

Was question 3 not Wilkinson v Downton

I actually looked at it from both perspectives, Wilkinson v downtown has tops 5 cases related to it. I suppose you could argue it was so deliberate it wasn't negligent but ugh I don't know.

Legal_Eagle_95

vid36 wrote: »

Was question 3 not Wilkinson v Downton

I also thought it was infliction of emotional distress? Wouldn’t be NS cos no close personal relationship in the eyes of the Court.

Also for the employers liability was it ok to talk about modern expansions to system of work like bullying and stress injuries?

bigtophat13

Negligence totally wrong so? Perhaps, hope not

xBell123

*Company*

Trying to learn everything and feel like it’s getting to be too much!!

I planned to learn:

Incorporation and documentation (s.31 contract, alteration of articles - really short)
SLP
Corporate capacity and ultra vires
Directors (s.158 delegation, types, duties)
Restriction and disqualification
Reckless and fraudulent trading
Share transfer
Shareholder protection (foss v harbottle, s. 212)
Corporate borrowing
Winding up
Distribution of assets

Haven’t had a chance to look at winding up or distribution of assets yet and considering leaving them out - is that wise?

Is the list above too much / not enough? I’m freaking

bigtophat13

Legal_Eagle_95 wrote: »

I also thought it was infliction of emotional distress? Wouldn’t be NS cos no close personal relationship in the eyes of the Court.

Also for the employers liability was it ok to talk about modern expansions to system of work like bullying and stress injuries?

Absolutely, never even thought about that and I had lovely stuff for it

holliek

For the question of registration of charges, my answer is literally just a summary of s408 and s409.. Does anyone have any cases or additional info on that topic?

vid36

It shows just how difficult tort can be, you really need 14 + topics to be confident of five good questions. It is very frustrating and probably means that I will have another year in the wilderness.

leavingcert17

What was the purpose of tort question?

Supermax1988

holliek wrote: »

For the question of registration of charges, my answer is literally just a summary of s408 and s409.. Does anyone have any cases or additional info on that topic?

It's very legislation heavy. You might be able to throw in a case or two for Section 417-application for an extension of time. Look at Re Manning Furniture Ltd., Re Telford Motors, and Re Resnoid and Mica Products Ltd.

There's also Frank Bell and Sons Ltd;Shaw's Application but I've read the facts of that case several times in two different manuals and for the life of me I can't understand the reasoning behind the decision.

iamanengine

I'm obviously biased but I'm certain that that was one of the hardest tort papers out of the last 20 or so sittings bar maybe March 14.

Just the luck of the draw. It happens.

Almost certainly failed, means I have to pass my other 3 or my work has been for nought

Well, no one ever said it was gunna be easy lol