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

Freckley201

Jack McCoy wrote: »

Constitutional seems impossible to predict but I'm putting an emphasis on studying remedies (damage, retrospective effect, and suspended declarations). We might see the 2018 decisions filtering through in this paper.

Has there been a standalone remedy question before? I don't have much notes on it.

isawitfirst

law_struggles wrote: »

Constitutional

What would you add to these topics?

1. Natural / Historical / Harmonious
2. Attorney General
3. Independence of Judiciary
4. Separation of Powers
5. Equality
6. Expression
7. General Family Q
8. 42 A

Thanks

Hey, are these the 8 topics Independent suggested or did ye just pick these to focus on yerselves?

Daly29

Freckley201 wrote: »

Has there been a standalone remedy question before? I don't have much notes on it.

I have nothing on that. Havent seen it, I'll try and get a few lines on Effect of I Unconstitutionality in case it is part of a problem Q.

BemusedKettle

Anyone have what came up last sititing in Constitutional handy?

law_struggles

isawitfirst wrote: »

Hey, are these the 8 topics Independent suggested or did ye just pick these to focus on yerselves?

No these are the ones I picked myself.

GF612

BemusedKettle wrote: »

Anyone have what came up last sititing in Constitutional handy?

1. Budgetary Powers & International law
2. Fair Procedures: Audi Altaram Partem
3. Referenda
4. Casenote
5. Unenumerated Rights: Right to Earn a Livelihood & Privacy
6. Art 38.1: Specifically Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
7. Property Rights
8. Religion

Daly29

GF612 wrote: »

1. Budgetary Powers & International law
2. Fair Procedures: Audi Altaram Partem
3. Referenda
4. Casenote
5. Unenumerated Rights: Right to Earn a Livelihood & Privacy
6. Art 38.1: Specifically Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
7. Property Rights
8. Religion

Hoping he doesnt pick any of the above again :-)

Freckley201

Starting to second guess myself so wanted to double check....

Is it right that unmarried fathers get automatic guardianship if they've lives with the mother for 12months, including 3 months after the child was born? (Under Child Family relationships act)

I thought this was the case but none of my sample answers are referring to it.

Daly29

Freckley201 wrote: »

Starting to second guess myself so wanted to double check....

Is it right that unmarried fathers get automatic guardianship if they've lives with the mother for 12months, including 3 months after the child was born? (Under Child Family relationships act)

I thought this was the case but none of my sample answers are referring to it.

Unmarried fathers and guardianship
The Act provides that an unmarried father will automatically
be a guardian if he has lived with the childs mother for 12
months, including at least three months with the mother and
child following the childs birth. The period of cohabitation can
take place at any time before the child turns 18 years old.


Never even heard of the above until now, thank you!

Freckley201

Daly29 wrote: »

Unmarried fathers and guardianship
The Act provides that an unmarried father will automatically
be a guardian if he has lived with the childs mother for 12
months, including at least three months with the mother and
child following the childs birth. The period of cohabitation can
take place at any time before the child turns 18 years old.


Never even heard of the above until now, thank you!

Hope it comes in handy so!!

GF612

Daly29 wrote: »

Hoping he doesnt pick any of the above again :-)

Me too haha

Aoibhin511

CONTRACT

Anyone have the facts for Intrum Justitia v Legal and Trade Financial Services? I marked the case as NB but can't find my notes on it anywhere.

scooby321

Constitutional

Anyone have a handly line on thr outcome of Wansboro? Took A v Arb Hill further but still refused relief - does this mean the court are clampung down on retrospective effect?

Brain is melted 🙈

isawitfirst

scooby321 wrote: »

Constitutional

Anyone have a handly line on thr outcome of Wansboro? Took A v Arb Hill further but still refused relief - does this mean the court are clampung down on retrospective effect?

Brain is melted ��

he was entitled to rely on the unconstitutionality found in DPP v Moore no? bc his case wasn't finalised yet

Jack McCoy

The applicant could rely on the unconstitutionality as his case was not finalised because his appeal was still pending (unlike in A) and he had taken no steps during the course of the proceedings which would estop him from relying on the unconstitutionality (as in Frawley).

It narrows the scope of A and confirms that whether a person is precluded from relying on a subsequent finding of unconstitutionality will depend on whether he has adopted a strategy/approach which is inconsistent with the later ruling.

HappyKitten62

EQUITY EMERGENCY

My notes for Constructive Trusts are missing. Does anyone have notes on this? ((

jus_me

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

EQUITY EMERGENCY

My notes for Constructive Trusts are missing. Does anyone have notes on this? ((

I do - PM me your email

HappyKitten62

jus_me wrote: »

I do - PM me your email

I just located them!!! Thank you

Coleman101

Hey folks, would any kind soul send in the contract paper from March 2019?

JohnsKite

Contract question: does anyone have cases for 'due diligence', 'best endeavours', and 'good faith' type problems?

iamanengine

Contract

Does anyone have a handy case note for MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising? UKSC 2018 case on consideration.

Edit - SC case is Rock Advertising v MWB Business Exchange. Above is the CoA case.

DUMSURFER

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

EQUITY EMERGENCY

My notes for Constructive Trusts are missing. Does anyone have notes on this? ((

This isn't to be rude but honestly just a question because I want to make sure what I've been working off is correct and not completely wrong. But why is this emergency (obviously preparing notes and losing them is awful and I'm delighted you found them!) but am I right in saying Constructive Trust has only come up once ever in 2013? And just in general, do people think it's coming up this year?

JohnsKite

iamanengine wrote: »

Contract

Does anyone have a handy case note for MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising? UKSC 2018 case on consideration.

Edit - SC case is Rock Advertising v MWB Business Exchange. Above is the CoA case.

https://trinitycollegelawreview.org/mwb-v-rock-a-case-note/

SC just reversed most of it, I believe they reaffirmed the foakes v beers line, but said it was ripe for future debate. theres also a wiki for the SC one.

sbbyrne

EU - Direct Effect

Would anyone be able to explain the relevance/importance of the Marleasing judgment to me, please?

isawitfirst

Anyone else get confused by Q1 and 2 of constitutional? The Diesel Fuel question was about Cityview etc and the question with Blanaid was about the board using court powers, was it?

HappyKitten62

DUMSURFER wrote: »

This isn't to be rude but honestly just a question because I want to make sure what I've been working off is correct and not completely wrong. But why is this emergency (obviously preparing notes and losing them is awful and I'm delighted you found them!) but am I right in saying Constructive Trust has only come up once ever in 2013? And just in general, do people think it's coming up this year?

Hey! I was panicking mainly because I’m trying to cover as much of the course as I can - this is my first sitting so I’m anxious about leaving things out. But it’s getting close to crunch time now, I actually didn’t realise it hadn’t come up since then, maybe I should not bother with it!?

iamanengine

JohnsKite wrote: »

https://trinitycollegelawreview.org/mwb-v-rock-a-case-note/

Appreciate it but that is for the 2016 case, it has since gone to the SC.

JohnsKite

iamanengine wrote: »

Appreciate it but that is for the 2016 case, it has since gone to the SC.

yep, i ended in the SC thing, just reversals, there's a wikipedia page on the 2018 one

Vegetarian2017

isawitfirst wrote: »

Anyone else get confused by Q1 and 2 of constitutional? The Diesel Fuel question was about Cityview etc and the question with Blanaid was about the board using court powers, was it?

Q1 I answered as prin and policy etc, no. 2 as unjust attack on property rights and the agency going beyond their powers as for judiciary to determine. I hope that was right!
Mod deletion
Came out feeling very disappointed. 2 to 3 pages per question for four questions but 1 for fifth but not sure it was of good standard. Blanked alot. Anyone who has passed before id welcome any comments
Also what did people answer on the question re defer to declare unconstitutional curious how people approach this?

Mod
Pls do not discuss individual tutors here

tthgn

Excerpt from dicta of Lord Sumption in SC below. The very last line from the quote is the most important piece. Basically the court refused to deal with issue of consideration as they had already upheld the validity of anti oral variation clauses and any comments on consideration would only be obiter. They noted however that topic of consideration was ripe for re-examination.

"That makes it unnecessary to deal with consideration. It is also, I think, undesirable to do so. The issue is a difficult one. The only consideration which MWB can be said to have been given for accepting a less advantageous schedule of payments was (i) the prospect that the payments were more likely to be made if they were loaded onto the back end of the contract term, and (ii) the fact that MWB would be less likely to have the premises left vacant on its hands while it sought a new licensee. These were both expectations of practical value, but neither was a contractual entitlement. In Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1, the Court of Appeal held that an expectation of commercial advantage was good consideration. The problem about this was that practical expectation of benefit was the very thing which the House of Lords held not to be adequate consideration in Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605: see in particular p 622 per Lord Blackburn. There are arguable points of distinction, although the arguments are somewhat forced. A differently constituted Court of Appeal made these points in In re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474, and declined to follow Williams v Roffey. The reality is that any decision on this point is likely to involve a re-examination of the decision in Foakes v Beer. It is probably ripe for re-examination. But if it is to be overruled or its effect substantially modified, it should be before an enlarged panel of the court and in a case where the decision would be more than obiter dictum."