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

holliek

Supermax1988 wrote: »

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.

That's great thanks for the help! I'll add in the bit about extension, completely forgot I actually had them in my notes. Don't know Bell and Shaw case but I'll have a look at them. Thanks again!

bigtophat13

iamanengine wrote: »

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

I think that's a fair enough assertion, it was quite nasty but that was expected after the lovely one last time I'm afraid

iamanengine

leavingcert17 wrote: »

What was the purpose of tort question?

Basically, discuss the fundamental objectives of Tort law illustrating through case law

bigtophat13

Anyone else any thoughts on the nervous shock / Wilkinson v downtown question?

Supermax1988

xBell123 wrote: »

*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

Solid enough list to my eye if you cover it all. You're probably guaranteed 2 (maybe 3) questions from Directors/Restriction and Disqual/Corporate Borrowing alone.

I'd definitely cover Winding up and Distribution of assets. They're both due a run going by the grid!

ally1234

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. I’m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

Supermax1988

holliek wrote: »

Don't know Bell and Shaw case but I'll have a look at them.

It's the one case! Just a weird title. If you can figure it out feel free to come back and explain it me!

ally1234

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Anyone else any thoughts on the nervous shock / Wilkinson v downtown question?

I went with nervous shock only. I assumed Wilkinson refered to trespass to person but I doubt you would be incorrect mentioning it, I wish I did! My brain was fried in there. I’m glad it’s over and I’m finished. If I pass it’s my last ever fe1 but I’m doubtful of that!!

JCormac

Hopefully the rest of the papers aren't as difficult as Tort sounded

Does anyone know where to source the newest Colleges night before notes?

Particularly for Criminal and Property. It seems the links are broken or they just haven't released them to everybody

LawGirl3434

ally1234 wrote: »

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. I’m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

That’s exactly where I am I think 4 that were okay and one that wasn’t

Gunslinger92

ally1234 wrote: »

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. I’m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

1 good question
2 average
2 pulled out of my hole
51% :pac:

bigtophat13

At least I'm not the only one so ! It's doable for sure guys, in the ones I viewed I had passed most in 4 questions with weak final questions then just to add on, don't psych yourselves out!

leavingcert17

iamanengine wrote: »

Basically, discuss the fundamental objectives of Tort law illustrating through case law

Would that have been duty of care? Neighbour principle?

Supreme!Fox

Are special contracts and shareholder agreements the same thing, and if not, what is the difference?

lawless11

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

1 good question
2 average
2 pulled out of my hole
51% :pac:

Feel this was me today, so hopefully an on the dot pass lol

sapphire309

Can anybody get their head around the avoidance of post commencement dispositions? My notes are a complete mess! Is the position in Ireland basically just the reverse of Hollicourt v BOI in that banks can be made liable for post-commencement dispositions?

What effect does s.602(3) have on all this? Apparently it has reversed the decision in Re Industrial Services Ltd....?

I'm in a blind panic at this stage, still have mountains to learn and I don't seem to be able to grasp the basics

bigtophat13

lawless11 wrote: »

Feel this was me today, so hopefully an on the dot pass lol

For me it's all riding on whether that nervous shock was nervous shock, it was either no good or excellent defamation was nice and a wide amount to talk about and shoe off, med neg not bad, causation complex but allowed you talk about a lot and damages was, eh

Lovestolisten

Q3 I really felt it referred to Psychological Damage.
Eoin Quill has a short section in 2nd edition of Torts in Ireland under Miscellaneous Torts.
My book is old so maybe more cases since this edition.
I looked at it under Intentional Torts.
I don’t know if Nervous Shock would satisfy, proximity requirement would fail.. Ex relationship .. If Brothers failed in Alcock an ex girl friend would be way too remote.

ally1234

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

1 good question
2 average
2 pulled out of my hole
51% :pac:

Thank you, I’m hoping he will be kind with the stuff I threw on the paper this monrnig. I’d love a pass regardless of where I go from here career wise I just want these exams finished with! Best of luck to everyone sitting more this week and next, if I can get to 7 anyone can do it!

bigtophat13

Lovestolisten wrote: »

Q3 I really felt it referred to Psychological Damage.
Eoin Quill has a short section in 2nd edition of Torts in Ireland under Miscellaneous Torts.
My book is old so maybe more cases since this edition.
I looked at it under Intentional Torts.
I don’t know if Nervous Shock would satisfy, proximity requirement would fail.. Ex relationship .. If Brothers failed in Alcock an ex girl friend would be way too remote.

I guess I just saw psychological damage and jumped on it. Surely Wilkinson v downtown is gonna be such a short answer though!?

He was nasty and changed the exam again in not referring to the exact question.

Vegetarian2017

bigtophat13 wrote:

Anyone else any thoughts on the nervous shock / Wilkinson v downtown question?

I thought it was wilkinson I didn't attempt. Anyhow re tort I cannot complain because I went in trying to wing it just ran out of time but honestly for those of you that did prep or spend a lot longer good god, it was very odd selections and so specific. Was the first question causation / contributory neg??

Vegetarian2017

ally1234 wrote:

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. I’m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

Listen id say alot of people found it difficult the fact you got five questions answered /attempted for a tough paper you'll have a good chance.

Vegetarian2017

Even though tort was a half attempt for me as i am doing five feel totally knocked for tomo paper like of it a curveball like that ugh:/
Is company examiner tough?

iamanengine

leavingcert17 wrote: »

Would that have been duty of care? Neighbour principle?

I'm not 100% sure but I think it's more along the lines of the function of Tort, usually the 1st chapter in the manuals, compensation/vindication/deterrence etc

Very rare, only came up once before in the last 20 or so sittings.

LawGirl3434

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure but I think it's more along the lines of the function of Tort, usually the 1st chapter in the manuals, compensation/vindication/deterrence etc

Very rare, only came up once before in the last 20 or so sittings.

Ray Ray let us down today it wasn’t poor Mary and her mannequin inflicting emotional distress

Doser

xBell123 wrote: »

*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

In the exact same boat, seeing winding-up at the end of my list makes me think I dont have time! I'm running with you on the rest of it.
1. Directors (hoping 1 or 2 questions come up from the amount there is on it),
2. Shareholder protection (Foss Harbottle, s212),
3. SLP,
4. Restriction/Disqualification,
5. Reckless & Fraudulent,
6. corporate capacity and ultra vires,
7. Examinership,
Share Transfer
Receivership
Winding up.


I've tried to list the order I'm most comfortable for the others. Anything after is a cluster of straws to clutch at. I could be hoping for way too kind of an exam.

holliek

sapphire309 wrote: »

Can anybody get their head around the avoidance of post commencement dispositions? My notes are a complete mess! Is the position in Ireland basically just the reverse of Hollicourt v BOI in that banks can be made liable for post-commencement dispositions?

What effect does s.602(3) have on all this? Apparently it has reversed the decision in Re Industrial Services Ltd....?

I'm in a blind panic at this stage, still have mountains to learn and I don't seem to be able to grasp the basics

My understanding is that Hollicourt made the recipient liable, the Industrial Services Co reversed that by making the bank liable. Then s602 came into place which upheld the Industrial Services Co. So then the position is Hollicourt reversed.

BemusedKettle

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure but I think it's more along the lines of the function of Tort, usually the 1st chapter in the manuals, compensation/vindication/deterrence etc

Very rare, only came up once before in the last 20 or so sittings.

Lol, for this Q I went off on one about VL saying it was against fault based liability and how the doctrine expanded in the search of Deep Pockets, then I threw in a paragraph on the court's unwillingness to let public authorities attract liability to avoid a chilling affect on their behavior. I was stuck for my 5th so I was like well it knida works

And I did Q3 as straight Nervous Shock

So that's one fail! oh well

bigtophat13

BemusedKettle wrote: »

Lol, for this Q I went off on one about VL saying it was against fault based liability and how the doctrine expanded in the search of Deep Pockets, then I threw in a paragraph on the court's unwillingness to let public authorities attract liability to avoid a chilling affect on their behavior. I was stuck for my 5th so I was like well it knida works

And I did Q3 as straight Nervous Shock

So that's one fail! oh well

If you justified it it works , broad question as essays go!

Hey, jury's still not out on that one

holliek

Supermax1988 wrote: »

It's the one case! Just a weird title. If you can figure it out feel free to come back and explain it me!

Your right, the facts of that case are fairly confusing. So there was a mortgage which wasn't registered for years, and then finally registered years later. And then I'm lost!! I think they allowed the extension though