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

Bayb12

SLP was question 8 no???

Lumi77

I am starting to this they are all set to be awful papers this sitting...
Tort yesterday
Company today

yournerd

Lumi77 wrote: »

I am starting to this they are all set to be awful papers this sitting...
Tort yesterday
Company today

Now am I dreading EU.

Lumi77

Just wondering if anyone did question two today
What was it about

tiddy_boo

Bayb12 wrote: »

SLP was question 8 no???

I thought so, but wasn't sure which probably came across in my answer!

Bayb12

Well I threw in other waffle as well but that was my main argument

greenfrog24

Hi there! In constitutional, could someone explain Re Art 26 and The Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] and its relevance to Equality? Did the Court change its approach taken in Quinn Supermarket re the human personality doctrine? I'm finding it quite confusing!

Robbie25808

Any tips for this constitutional exam'?

Chuckler

Bayb12 wrote: »

SLP was question 8 no???

Yep.....horrible paper

Chuckler

Company Law today...WTF!!!!!!! SERIOUSLY...WTF!!!! Why would someone turn around and set a paper with no Directors Duties or Restrictions. What a horrible obscure paper. I know I'm not alone on this listening to the muffled postmortems on the Luas on the way back to Heuston. interestingly, no one could say "Oh I answered SLP on that" for instance. This is my final and I can see myself back at the Red Cow in March after this exam.... not happy. Even the Shareholders question was trapped with specifics. Answered 4.25 questions due to time. Paper threw me.I mean how do you answer a question on directors declaration of Solvency? (My 0.25 question). Hopefully examiner will be VERY lenient when marking.

ArthurDayne

Chuckler wrote: »

Company Law today...WTF!!!!!!! SERIOUSLY...WTF!!!! Why would someone turn around and set a paper with no Directors Duties or Restrictions. What a horrible obscure paper. I know I'm not alone on this listening to the muffled postmortems on the Luas on the way back to Heuston. interestingly, no one could say "Oh I answered SLP on that" for instance. This is my final and I can see myself back at the Red Cow in March after this exam.... not happy. Even the Shareholders question was trapped with specifics. Answered 4.25 questions due to time. Paper threw me.I mean how do you answer a question on directors declaration of Solvency? (My 0.25 question). Hopefully examiner will be VERY lenient when marking.

All these complaints about Company today have been reassuring ironically. I'm quite sure that in years to come, the poor souls who follow us down the path of the FE1s will say "Christ that October 2017 paper was ugly".

I remember thinking that the Tort paper which chucked liability for animals or liability for fire was a sickener. But without doubt, today's Company paper was the biggest curveball I've seen yet.

Chuckler

ArthurDayne wrote: »

All these complaints about Company today have been reassuring ironically. I'm quite sure that in years to come, the poor souls who follow us down the path of the FE1s will say "Christ that October 2017 paper was ugly".

I remember thinking that the Tort paper which chucked liability for animals or liability for fire was a sickener. But without doubt, today's Company paper was the biggest curveball I've seen yet.

The question on everybody's mind....hopefully the marker will be lenient. I hear stories about how people sit horrible exams and come out with great marks. For me, it's black and white. Think it's bad....it's really bad. Thinks it's good....bare pass! I willpost in December when the results come out (if I'm not sobered up by then)

Robbie25808

Constitutional:

If you refer a whole Bill and one part is repugnant, does this mean that the whole Bill is?

hullaballoo

Can anyone hazard their recollection of what came up today?

It might be useful to see where the examiners are coming from and I'd be hopeful I can help with a view to the next sittings to ensure people aren't caught out too badly again.

Mayo91

What was Question 3 (Chapter 7 Part 4) about (particularly sneaky, the way that was asked)

What was Question 4 - s602 trying to get at?


These two, I wasn't sure what they were asking?

Leraf

hullaballoo wrote: »

Can anyone hazard their recollection of what came up today?

It might be useful to see where the examiners are coming from and I'd be hopeful I can help with a view to the next sittings to ensure people aren't caught out too badly again.

Someone please send him the paper, if only so he can save the rest of us that have to sit it in march. It sounds horrific. After my day in Tort yesterday, I feel your pain.

SM1803

Examinership, section 212/winding up for just & equitable reasons, s602, corporate borrowing, Summary Approval Procedure, adv & disadv of incorporation, Ltd v DAC compare & contrast and I have no idea what Q2 was about

bluntspoon

hullaballoo wrote: »

Can anyone hazard their recollection of what came up today?

It might be useful to see where the examiners are coming from and I'd be hopeful I can help with a view to the next sittings to ensure people aren't caught out too badly again.

This is a pretty poor copy, but legible at least.

ArthurDayne

bluntspoon wrote: »

This is a pretty poor copy, but legible at least.

Hisssss send it back to hell!

Lumi77

SM1803 wrote: »

Examinership, section 212/winding up for just & equitable reasons, s602, corporate borrowing, Summary Approval Procedure, adv & disadv of incorporation, Ltd v DAC compare & contrast and I have no idea what Q2 was about

I am still trying to find out what question 2 was about

yournerd

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Hisssss send it back to hell!

It was such a horrible paper. Can't find the words to describe my feeling right now

Chuckler

"SM1803 Examinership, section 212/winding up for just & equitable reasons, s602, corporate borrowing, Summary Approval Procedure, adv & disadv of incorporation, Ltd v DAC compare & contrast and I have no idea what Q2 was about"

Q2. Capital Maintenance Rules - Normally a question is asked on S.82 Financial Assistance. This time it was on the other aspect of Capital Maintenance - Financial Distributions - S.117. A similar question was asked once before in October 2008.

Its as if the examiner is viewing the previous high pass rate and thinks "Hmmmn, maybe I'm making this too easy" and we get the Nuclear Option...only the strongest survive....then comes the radiation poisoning!

Sarakarp

Could anyone kindly share tips for Criminal and property law please...the rest of the exams were ridiculous

pottsss777

For criminal, would it be mad to leave out the criminal courts and arrest/presump of innocence/silence/bail?

monroe89

pottsss777 wrote: »

For criminal, would it be mad to leave out the criminal courts and arrest/presump of innocence/silence/bail?

I would think you'd be ok to leave out the courts, but I'd have a skim over things like bail/silence etc. They could be weaved into a problem question, and criminal does favour a mixed bag. It'd be a shame to miss out on a couple marks for the sake of a line or two.

hullaballoo

Lumi77 wrote: »

I am still trying to find out what question 2 was about

I can understand the confusion in relation to Q2. Certainly not straight-forward. But it's not just capital maintenance rules because you are asked to advise someone who just bought all of the company's shares whether the transactions can be avoided.

The question is about directors' duties and more specifically fiduciary duties to the company. The company, now under the control of another, can seek to have the former directors account and or indemnify the company in relation to losses arising from the breach(es). I admit this is not straight-forward.

Obviously, it would be nice if you were given some information about the solvency of the company after the asset drain by the former directors but I think I would answer on both the bases being (a) the company is still solvent and (b) the company is now insolvent.

It is much easier to know where you're going in the event that the company is insolvent now.

It is further complicated by the lack of information on what, if any, relationship Janet had with Jason. The extent of Janet's knowledge of what Jason was at is important under the terms of the sections dealing with directors' duties etc.

FreeFallin94

pottsss777 wrote: »

For criminal, would it be mad to leave out the criminal courts and arrest/presump of innocence/silence/bail?

I'm leaving this out anyway. Didn't have the time and I feel like I know the rest of my topics well enough (hopefully!).

Anyone have any recommendations for cases I might look at for the case note question in EU? I'm not planning on answering it but I'm also not doing competition law so I may end up stuck having to write about 3 cases as a last resort.

fe1hunzo

pottsss777 wrote: »

For criminal, would it be mad to leave out the criminal courts and arrest/presump of innocence/silence/bail?

Honestly after going through all the papers from the last few years and having the examiner as a lecturer you can guarantee there will be something on the criminal procedure element.
Courts is handy because its either the Court of Appeal, Special Criminal Courts or a question where you could mention both with a short part on Central Criminal, High, District as well.
If you have access to the reports from criminal they are great answer guides. Throw in some nice commentary on things where you can.
But if you've covered all the substantive offences and the defences you're fine. They tend to come up together for problems and then you might get an essay on one particular offence/defence.
Bail and silence can come up with substantive offences too. So don't learn anything in isolation, i.e. learn offences against the state, with right to silence, inferences.
Learn sexual offences with their defences, same for homicide offences.

Lumi77

hullaballoo wrote: »

I can understand the confusion in relation to Q2. Certainly not straight-forward. But it's not just capital maintenance rules because you are asked to advise someone who just bought all of the company's shares whether the transactions can be avoided.

The question is about directors' duties and more specifically fiduciary duties to the company. The company, now under the control of another, can seek to have the former directors account and or indemnify the company in relation to losses arising from the breach(es). I admit this is not straight-forward.

Obviously, it would be nice if you were given some information about the solvency of the company after the asset drain by the former directors but I think I would answer on both the bases being (a) the company is still solvent and (b) the company is now insolvent.

It is much easier to know where you're going in the event that the company is insolvent now.

It is further complicated by the lack of information on what, if any, relationship Janet had with Jason. The extent of Janet's knowledge of what Jason was at is important under the terms of the sections dealing with directors' duties etc.

I answered on fudiciary duties and touched on remedies s232 did make a point on the relationship of the two and went a tiny bit into the statutory duties
I hope that was enough for it
Thank you for clarifying that

bluntspoon

hullaballoo wrote: »

I can understand the confusion in relation to Q2. Certainly not straight-forward. But it's not just capital maintenance rules because you are asked to advise someone who just bought all of the company's shares whether the transactions can be avoided.

The question is about directors' duties and more specifically fiduciary duties to the company. The company, now under the control of another, can seek to have the former directors account and or indemnify the company in relation to losses arising from the breach(es). I admit this is not straight-forward.

Obviously, it would be nice if you were given some information about the solvency of the company after the asset drain by the former directors but I think I would answer on both the bases being (a) the company is still solvent and (b) the company is now insolvent.

It is much easier to know where you're going in the event that the company is insolvent now.

It is further complicated by the lack of information on what, if any, relationship Janet had with Jason. The extent of Janet's knowledge of what Jason was at is important under the terms of the sections dealing with directors' duties etc.

But the question asks about having the transactions "set aside". It seems like that's qualitatively different to having the director account to the company for the transactions?

Also, what about Janet? She wasn't a director so she can't be asked to account - the bit with her is pure capital maintenance isn't it? Something about members being forced to return interim dividends if they know they shouldn't have been paid. (I clearly did not study capital maintenance or even attempt this question).

I'd love to know how many people gave this one a go today!

Edit: And the transfer of the site to Jason - is that not S238? Voidable at the insistence of the company? Unless the company approved it I suppose.