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

Lumi77

Just got this email from Law Society

The FE-1 will be held in the Red Cow Moran Hotel.

Exam information letters will be sent out in the post early next week.

yournerd

LegalLaaaaady wrote: »

Does anyone have an examiners report for Criminal March 2017?

yup!

nmwcc

Hi all.

Does anyone have any indication on what chapters I might be safe to leave out for EU? I know that might sound like a stupid question but at the moment its a little unrealistic for me to try and cover every one of the following;

Institutions
General Principles of EU law
Impact on National Legal Systems
MS Liability
Judicial Review
The Preliminary Ref Procedure
Infringement Proceedings
Internal Market; FMG
Internal Market; FM S,E, W and C
Citizenship
Equality
Competition
Mergers
State Aid

Does anyone know whether I could leave any of the above out and be in with a chance of passing? Thanks in advance!!

The Talking Bread

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

Q3 in March was a Mareva essay Q.

Yeah, it was October sitting I was really wondering about.

Lumi77

I am skipping Mergers and State Aid but doing case notes even though State Aid is meant to come up or so they say.
Good luck

Lindyloo 1

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Yeah, it was October sitting I was really wondering about.

Hey, I'm pretty sure it was Quia Timet in October 2016

Robbie25808

Hey,

Does anybody know anything about these cases are in relation to privilege?

O’Brien v Clarke of Dail Eireann & Ors
Kerins v McGuinness & Ors

Thanks

Bayb12

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Re Equity Injunction Question .....Mareva came up last sitting if I am correct in saying?

But which topic came up in October 2016 (in Quia Timet, mandatory, APRIL etc ??)

I'm pretty sure it was Quia Timet

cojamocork

In re exams rules and all that, I know we're allowed to bring in certain treaties and legislation which can be tabbed but not written on etc. But, is is permitted to highlight and underline sections?

pottsss777

cojamocork wrote: »

In re exams rules and all that, I know we're allowed to bring in certain treaties and legislation which can be tabbed but not written on etc. But, is is permitted to highlight and underline sections?

Yeah it's fine to highlight and underline

MomTuR

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Hey,

Does anybody know anything about these cases are in relation to privilege?

O’Brien v Clarke of Dail Eireann & Ors
Kerins v McGuinness & Ors

Thanks

Art 15.10 and parliamentary privilege.

The O'Brien case concerns Dennis O'Brien's failed court case to receive damages because of utterances made in the Dail by two TD's regarding his bank finances with IBRC. The claim failed because of special parliamentary privilege and that the Courts can't intervene (S.O.P etc)

The Angela Kerins case is about her attending a PAC hearing VOLUNTARILY and being unfairly treated regarding the personal and professional questions the Committee made. Her case also failed because of privilege under Art 15.10. However, she had 2/3 of her costs awarded against the Def as a sort of compensation.

Robbo

MomTuR wrote: »

Art 15.10 and parliamentary privilege.

The O'Brien case concerns Dennis O'Brien's failed court case to receive damages because of utterances made in the Dail by two TD's regarding his bank finances with IBRC. The claim failed because of special parliamentary privilege and that the Courts can't intervene (S.O.P etc)

O'Brien only sought declaratory reliefs.

SagarMudgal

Does anyone have sample answers to exchange? If so send me a Pm.

Robbie25808

In relation to the question below, I know that to have a duty of care there must be
(1) sufficent proximity
(2) reasoanble reliance on the public authority.

I know all the case law for it but how do you actually determine if there is sufficient proximity? And also what do they mean in relation to reasonable reliance on the public authority?

Dolphie was the name given to a wild dolphin that had made its home in the seaside town of
Winter Bay. Over time he had become quite a tourist attraction and all of the town had noticed
that tourist numbers had increased significantly since his arrival.
Eager to bring as much business to the town as possible, the town council had erected a set
location on the quayside where they would bring food to Dolphie at specific times of the day.
Dolphie had learned when the food was due and would swim alongside the quay in anticipation.
The council had thus installed a metal ladder leading to a partially submerged metal viewing
platform with a railing about 1 metre high on which tourists could stand and which would
enable them to reach out and touch Dolphie as he was feeding. This was a great success and
it became a significant tourist attraction for the town.
Unfortunately, whether due to age or some rough treatment, the council had begun to notice
that Dolphie was not as friendly as he was when he first arrived. He would often now keep as
far away as possible from the viewing platform when being fed. Moreover the council workers
who fed Dolphie had reported that he had become far more aggressive in recent weeks, almost
biting them as they fed him.
Two days ago, Walt was visiting the town when he decided to go onto the viewing platform at
feeding time. Unfortunately someone had tied up a small dingy on the far side of the feeding
station with the result that Dolphie was forced to come alongside the quay between the viewing
platform and the feeding station. As he did so, Walt reached out to pet him at which point
Dolphie turned and bit Walt's hand. Dolphie then proceeded to knock Walt into the water and
Walt had to be rescued by the council workers.
Advise Winter Bay Council as to whether Walt has any claim in tort law.

Robbie25808

MomTuR wrote: »

Art 15.10 and parliamentary privilege.

The O'Brien case concerns Dennis O'Brien's failed court case to receive damages because of utterances made in the Dail by two TD's regarding his bank finances with IBRC. The claim failed because of special parliamentary privilege and that the Courts can't intervene (S.O.P etc)

The Angela Kerins case is about her attending a PAC hearing VOLUNTARILY and being unfairly treated regarding the personal and professional questions the Committee made. Her case also failed because of privilege under Art 15.10. However, she had 2/3 of her costs awarded against the Def as a sort of compensation.

Thanks, so what is the consequences of these cases for a problem question that might come up?
I do not understand the in O'Biren. I thought he had an injunction and then they made utterances? So why can the court not intervene in a situation like this as it was effectively nullifying his injunction?

Also, does the Kerins case mean that if you voluntary attend and say things in the Dail, the court can use this against you?

Sorry very confused on this topic.

The Talking Bread

Hi can someone give me a lowdown what 8 topicscame up in Equity:

OCTOBER 2016

Leraf

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Hi can someone give me a lowdown what 8 topicscame up in Equity:

OCTOBER 2016

Emailed you the paper if that's any good?

Robbie25808

Hey,

In relation to Tort:

When you look at a question and you have to determine if there is a duty of care and the standard owed do you always use Caparo.
For example in the question below do i say pursuant to caparo the duty of care is proximity, forseeability, public policy, just and reasonable.
Or do i use what is in the book and follow the fear of diseases cases-Fletcher v Commissioner of public works and the standard of care in Bradley v CIE?

Obviosuly the rest of the question is on delegability. I do not have a specific case for this but i presume as he went outside his course of work that it has been discharged?

Sean had recently bought a car from his colleague and was delighted with it. One weekend, he
decided that he would tour the Wild Atlantic Way with it. Unfortunately, he had only gone around 75
kilometres when he heard a loud bang from the engine and suddenly water was gushing out of the front
radiator. Sean pushed the car into the side ofthe road and called his breakdown service, Car Rescue.
When Robert from Car Rescue arrived, he tried to see if he could repairthe leak so it could be driven to
the nearest garage, but unfortunately it was too severe to be repaired. Although the car could move,
one would only be able to drive it a kilometre or so before it would beginto overheat.
Car Rescue protocol dictated that the vehicle be winched onto the back of the Car Rescue truck and then
driven to the nearest approved garage. Robert manoeuvred the truck directly in front of Sean's car. He
was about to attach a winch to the front of Sean's car when Sean asked: "Why? I can drive it onto the
ramps. It is still capable of driving. One of my friends had the front of their car damaged by one of
those winches." Robert thought about this for a moment. Although company policy stated that a winch
had to be used, it made no sense in this case when the car was capable of being driven. Besides it was
getting late and this would be quicker. He agreed with Sean, saying "OK, if that iswhat you want. I will guide
you."
12
Sean got into the car, and following Robert's instructions drove onto the ramps. However, he went
too fast and drove into the back of the cab of the truck. Shaken, he opened the door and fell five feet
onto the ground breaking his leg.
Advise Car Rescue as to any potential liability intort for Robert's actions.

Supermax1988

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Hey,

In relation to Tort:

When you look at a question and you have to determine if there is a duty of care and the standard owed do you always use Caparo.
For example in the question below do i say pursuant to caparo the duty of care is proximity, forseeability, public policy, just and reasonable.
Or do i use what is in the book and follow the fear of diseases cases-Fletcher v Commissioner of public works and the standard of care in Bradley v CIE?

Obviosuly the rest of the question is on delegability. I do not have a specific case for this but i presume as he went outside his course of work that it has been discharged?

Sean had recently bought a car from his colleague and was delighted with it. One weekend, he
decided that he would tour the Wild Atlantic Way with it. Unfortunately, he had only gone around 75
kilometres when he heard a loud bang from the engine and suddenly water was gushing out of the front
radiator. Sean pushed the car into the side ofthe road and called his breakdown service, Car Rescue.
When Robert from Car Rescue arrived, he tried to see if he could repairthe leak so it could be driven to
the nearest garage, but unfortunately it was too severe to be repaired. Although the car could move,
one would only be able to drive it a kilometre or so before it would beginto overheat.
Car Rescue protocol dictated that the vehicle be winched onto the back of the Car Rescue truck and then
driven to the nearest approved garage. Robert manoeuvred the truck directly in front of Sean's car. He
was about to attach a winch to the front of Sean's car when Sean asked: "Why? I can drive it onto the
ramps. It is still capable of driving. One of my friends had the front of their car damaged by one of
those winches." Robert thought about this for a moment. Although company policy stated that a winch
had to be used, it made no sense in this case when the car was capable of being driven. Besides it was
getting late and this would be quicker. He agreed with Sean, saying "OK, if that iswhat you want. I will guide
you."
12
Sean got into the car, and following Robert's instructions drove onto the ramps. However, he went
too fast and drove into the back of the cab of the truck. Shaken, he opened the door and fell five feet
onto the ground breaking his leg.
Advise Car Rescue as to any potential liability intort for Robert's actions.

Don't think there'd be any need to discuss DOC or SOC in any great detail at all here as he's a client of Car Rescue so it would be presumed that a duty would be owed on that basis and it's clearly been breached by Robert's actions.

Instead you'd better served mostly focusing on the vicarious liability angle. Discuss what Vicarious Liability is and assess whether Car Rescue could be liable for Robert's actions.

Is there a relationship akin to employee/employer? Then move on to see if his actions fall under the scope/course of his employment. Apply the course of employment test. Although Robert was going against company policy he was still acting within the course of his employment (i.e. to get the car onto his truck and back to the garage.) and thus Car Rescue could be liable. O'Connell v Bateman (1932), Boyle v Ferguson (1911) and Kay v ITW (1968) could be used here.

Also for DOC questions, Glencar is the Irish authority, Caparo is the authority in England.

Robbie25808

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Don't think there'd be any need to discuss DOC or SOC in any great detail at all here as he's a client of Car Rescue so it would be presumed that a duty would be owed on that basis and it's clearly been breached by Robert's actions.

Instead you'd better served mostly focusing on the vicarious liability angle. Discuss what Vicarious Liability is and assess whether Car Rescue could be liable for Robert's actions.

Is there a relationship akin to employee/employer? Then move on to see if his actions fall under the scope/course of his employment. Apply the course of employment test. Although Robert was going against company policy he was still acting within the course of his employment (i.e. to get the car onto his truck and back to the garage.) and thus Car Rescue could be liable. O'Connell v Bateman (193E), Boyle v Ferguson (1911) and Kay v ITW (1968) could be used here.

Also for DOC questions, Glencar is the Irish authority, Caparo is the authority in England.

Many thanks for that. I was going at the wrong angle i think. I was looking at employers liability for occupational injury rather than vicarious

Robbie25808

Hey,

Another question in relation to Tort and vicarious liability.
The case of O'Keeffe v Hickey & Others states that the state was not liable as the dealings were with the manager as opposed to the dept.

However, i just came across this article:
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/louise-okeeffe-human-rights-ruling-leo-hickey-abuse-irish-state-1286672-Jan2014/

Does this mean that the state now will be liable if a similar situation arose again because of this ruling?

SM1803

anyone have any predictions for criminal?

Tony_TwoLegs

As the Clock ticks down and time constraints are an issue.....
Any opinions on top 6-8 'questions' to focus on for Constitutional?
I think having 8 known well vs 12 reasonably well is a calculated risk worth taking

fe1hunzo

Hey everyone,

Maybe a stupid question, haven't received my exam number so it may be covered with that, but what is the actual procedure for the days of the exams?
I'm aware of being able to bring the legislation and submitting that before hand etc. But in terms of on the day do we have to sign in/ approximately what time should I arrive at?
Probably silly when everyone else is focused on the actual syllabus right now.
But any advice or help for a first timer would be hugely appreciated!

Hope everyones study is going well

nmwcc

fe1hunzo wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Maybe a stupid question, haven't received my exam number so it may be covered with that, but what is the actual procedure for the days of the exams?
I'm aware of being able to bring the legislation and submitting that before hand etc. But in terms of on the day do we have to sign in/ approximately what time should I arrive at?
Probably silly when everyone else is focused on the actual syllabus right now.
But any advice or help for a first timer would be hugely appreciated!

Hope everyones study is going well

I think the time you arrive at is totally up to yourself and whether your getting a lift/driving etc. I was driving and was always terrified of a crash on m50 and some tailback, so I would arrive at around 8am and sit in the car and revise over notes there. In the red cow there are plenty of places to sit down and look over notes, you will see candidates perched on every corner so its nothing unusual! Your candidate pack will have what rooms you are in so you just go to that room at around 9:20 and look for your candidate number on the desk (there are loads of invigilators and signs around to help you if you are lost).

The one thing I would say from experience would be to bring a watch to have on the desk. The halls can be quite large and I hadn't a hope of seeing the clock from my seat.

Bayb12

fe1hunzo wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Maybe a stupid question, haven't received my exam number so it may be covered with that, but what is the actual procedure for the days of the exams?
I'm aware of being able to bring the legislation and submitting that before hand etc. But in terms of on the day do we have to sign in/ approximately what time should I arrive at?
Probably silly when everyone else is focused on the actual syllabus right now.
But any advice or help for a first timer would be hugely appreciated!

Hope everyones study is going well

There will be bodies everywhere in the Red cow on the day and everyone just does their own thing really. As long as you are sitting down for 20 past 9 you'll be fine, an invigilator comes round the exam hall and signs you in during the actual exam. Just make sure you know your exam number because it corresponds with your assigned desk

fe1hunzo

nmwcc and Bayb12,

Thanks so much! Pretty much just like an LL.B exam so. Yeah I'll be driving so I think its better to get there a lot earlier than I need to. Just in case! Its those silly logistics that would have me nearly more anxiety ridden than the exam itself. Best of luck with everything.

nmwcc

fe1hunzo wrote: »

nmwcc and Bayb12,

Thanks so much! Pretty much just like an LL.B exam so. Yeah I'll be driving so I think its better to get there a lot earlier than I need to. Just in case! Its those silly logistics that would have me nearly more anxiety ridden than the exam itself. Best of luck with everything.

Bizzare enough but I would say bring your card/change if you are driving. On certain days they were charging for the carpark in March, other days it was free? Just to avoid any messing when you get out of the exam!

lawstudentirl1

Hi all,

Am I right in thinking for Contract Law, parol evidence has never been examined?

yournerd

Has anyone got their exam number yet?