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

lsheehaneire

Obviously the Law Society cant really answer technical questions about the platform so why have they not provided a contact number/email for Better Examinations.....I feel that I am waiting so much study time and energy on this. VERY VERY frustrating !!

awsah

My internet is not fast enough to do the exam apparently, any one else with this issue?

Dliodoir2021

CoconutHeadMia wrote: »

Surely we could just use our legislation as rough work and they can’t really say anything about it?

Well if it’s not noticed until near the end, they’re just going to think we had notes in it all along?
Sorry, I’m not even sure anymore whether an actual person watches us during the exam / asks us to show us around the room or look at our legislation before the exam.

Get a cheap plain table cloth you can do rough work on. We can’t do any kind of mind map on this software which is how a lot of us probably jot down our thoughts

law987

If they are monitoring our eye movement it can't stand for anything if we have legislation to be looking at

Fe123

If it monitors eye movement then I’ll definitely be suspected of cheating as I look into space to try think of case names etc. What a load of ****

maggie95

Sorry if it's been asked before but does anyone have the Company Spring 2020 paper or even remember the topics that were on it?

Lallers96

Over 2 million downloads and only 1 star on the Play Store with nearly 2,000 reviews sounds very concerning when downloading this Proctorio software

dobby896

Heyo, I've a quick question re: injunctions that I'm getting slightly confused about.

If the question is on Quia Timet injunctions, do we only use the Szabo principles or can we use both Szabo and Campus Oil or either/or?

In Garrahy, they said that Campus Oil can be appropriate for QT injunctions, but in Szabo, the judge was reluctant to use them because he felt it inappropriate to balance the risk to the life of the children with other considerations, that seems quite unique to the facts of the case.

Just wondering how people would approach it, would you strictly use Szabo (and other QT principles) and ignore Campus Oil or refer to Campus Oil also?

scarson216

My webcam passed the initial check but on the next screen I can’t see myself or present ID. anyone else have this issue? Relatively new laptop and up to date, stressed

Lallers96

It seems easy enough to work, however you do not show your environment at any point so...I mean, need I say more about the possibilities.

Aoibhin511

Lallers96 wrote: »

It seems easy enough to work, however you do not show your environment at any point so...I mean, need I say more about the possibilities.

Yeah not sure that's how it'll be on the day though, I thought maybe it was because it was just a mock?

orlaghs

So what's the story with using legislation then? Surely they can't monitor everyone's and wouldn't it be very easy to slip notes into the middle of the pages? I originally thought they would supply them digitally but haven't heard anything

Lallers96

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Yeah not sure that's how it'll be on the day though, I thought maybe it was because it was just a mock?

Sure there's no person watching us on the day. The online exam never prompted us to show our workspace, and even if we did it unprompted who's to say we've done so adequately

Iso_123

Lallers96 wrote: »

Sure there's no person watching us on the day. The online exam never prompted us to show our workspace, and even if we did it unprompted who's to say we've done so adequately

Someone was told that eye movements would be monitored though? not sure how that works with legislation but anyway

Lallers96

Iso_123 wrote: »

Someone was told that eye movements would be monitored though? not sure how that works with legislation but anyway

The BetterExaminations page said that "we do not make the decisions, your examiner does" or something to that effect so I imagine whoever will be watching the recording, if anyone is, will give us leeway for the fact that we will be using legislation.

Iso_123

orlaghs wrote: »

So what's the story with using legislation then? Surely they can't monitor everyone's and wouldn't it be very easy to slip notes into the middle of the pages? I originally thought they would supply them digitally but haven't heard anything

If they supplied the legislation digitally after me paying the guts of 90 euro for the company act I would cry

channing90

During the system diagnostic, the last part with desktop icon it failed, just said something went wrong, anyone else have this issue ?

Dliodoir2021

dobby896 wrote: »

Heyo, I've a quick question re: injunctions that I'm getting slightly confused about.

If the question is on Quia Timet injunctions, do we only use the Szabo principles or can we use both Szabo and Campus Oil or either/or?

In Garrahy, they said that Campus Oil can be appropriate for QT injunctions, but in Szabo, the judge was reluctant to use them because he felt it inappropriate to balance the risk to the life of the children with other considerations, that seems quite unique to the facts of the case.

Just wondering how people would approach it, would you strictly use Szabo (and other QT principles) and ignore Campus Oil or refer to Campus Oil also?

Hi, it's 2 years since I passed equity but I remember wondering about this too and got this clarification. As far as I remember, Szabo is to be applied after Campus Oil but hopefully someone else studying equity now can confirm...

• - There will be a higher evidential burden if the injunction sought is quia timet in nature. We’ve moved away from it having to be a ‘moral certainty’ to the Szabo case standard set out by Geoghegan J that its the same test and evidentially, you have to show a high risk of danger.

Lelila

channing90 wrote: »

During the system diagnostic, the last part with desktop icon it failed, just said something went wrong, anyone else have this issue ?

Yes, I do. Tried ringing the LS numbers but can't get through. Also tried a different laptop but it won't even connect to the better examinations webpage!

Lawaholic

channing90 wrote: »

During the system diagnostic, the last part with desktop icon it failed, just said something went wrong, anyone else have this issue ?

I had this issue and I was able to fix it by enabling screen recording for Google Chrome. See below (this is if you are using a Mac):

Click System Preferences
Click on Security and Privacy > Privacy > Screen Recording
Check Google Chrome
Click the lock to make changes

eLawGirl

Is anyone else applying for a refund? Who do we email or contact about this?

Angela21

Law society have told me the exams will be 10-1.

I won't believe them until the exams are over. but sharing anyways

bkm2020

Lelila wrote: »

Yes, I do. Tried ringing the LS numbers but can't get through. Also tried a different laptop but it won't even connect to the better examinations webpage!

Any help appreciated also- can't get through at all to any of the phones.

Step 7. System Diagnostics Test has failed. Mine is the 1. microphone (which is prompting to download more proctorio software to fix it) and 2. The Desktop icon is red also.

Can't seem to fix it....

Lelila

channing90 wrote: »

During the system diagnostic, the last part with desktop icon it failed, just said something went wrong, anyone else have this issue ?

I just ran the help video. When the screen share pop up window appears, you have to click on the picture of the screen & then press the Share button. I was pressing the Share button but hadn't selected the screen first.

Lightup1

Have you left on the screen sharing for the exams or did you quit this feature afterwards in settings?

I'm new to Mac and have turned it off but wondering will it prompt us to turn it back on again for the exams?

LawLearnin

bkm2020 wrote: »

Any help appreciated also- can't get through at all to any of the phones.

Step 7. System Diagnostics Test has failed. Mine is the 1. microphone (which is prompting to download more proctorio software to fix it) and 2. The Desktop icon is red also.

Can't seem to fix it....

The microphone issue happened to me once and Webchat assistance person just said to make a bit of noise to engage the mic and that did the job.

bluerthanu

Dliodoir2021 wrote: »

Hi, it's 2 years since I passed equity but I remember wondering about this too and got this clarification. As far as I remember, Szabo is to be applied after Campus Oil but hopefully someone else studying equity now can confirm...

• - There will be a higher evidential burden if the injunction sought is quia timet in nature. We’ve moved away from it having to be a ‘moral certainty’ to the Szabo case standard set out by Geoghegan J that its the same test and evidentially, you have to show a high risk of danger.

Currently studying equity and my understanding is that you apply Campus Oil but the evidential burden is much higher. So (afaik), applying the threshold test you would need to prove that there is a substantial risk of danger, which must occur before the trial of action. Cases after Szabo, Gurraghy v. Bord na gCon and JRM Sports v. RTE, have applied the Campus Oil test also.

From what I can see QTI’s are generally problem questions (sometimes mixed with mandatory interlocutory injunctions) so would need to apply Campus Oil to the facts but you’re primarily focused on whether you can prove that there is fear of substantial risk of danger (Boswell was moral risk of certainty, but Szabo indicated the standard wasn’t that evidentially high) which will occur before the trial of action (and this must be either anticipated or feared, or occurred and the plaintiff fears its reoccurrence). The evidence of the danger will be vital, as Goeghegan J emphasised in Szabo.

That’s kinda what I have, open to corrections.

Edit: I went and looked at Geoghegan J’s judgment there and as you might see for yourself it’s incredibly conflicting (Google the case name and a UCC link shows it). On the one hand he adopts Spry that there is no difference in the test for QT and any other interlocutory injunction (so Campus Oil). On the other hand, at the end of his judgment he says that he is ‘very reluctant to adopt the traditional language of’ the test in Campus Oil, but then proceeds to apply that test. At any rate, it is a High Court judgment, so I think it is at best a guide as to the muddled approach a judge might take.

FE1_2020_

dobby896 wrote: »

Heyo, I've a quick question re: injunctions that I'm getting slightly confused about.

If the question is on Quia Timet injunctions, do we only use the Szabo principles or can we use both Szabo and Campus Oil or either/or?

In Garrahy, they said that Campus Oil can be appropriate for QT injunctions, but in Szabo, the judge was reluctant to use them because he felt it inappropriate to balance the risk to the life of the children with other considerations, that seems quite unique to the facts of the case.

Just wondering how people would approach it, would you strictly use Szabo (and other QT principles) and ignore Campus Oil or refer to Campus Oil also?

I wrestled with the same thoughts when I was doing my notes for that question. I came across the Murphy v Irish Water 2016 case where O'Regan J in the High Court stated that the test to be applied in application for a quia timet injunction was addressed by Geoghegan J in Szabo.

Thus, I am going with the Szabo approach as it is the main case when Quia Timet injunctions are examined and affirming this approach by referencing O'Regan J comments in Murphy that the test to be applied in QT was addressed in Szabo.

law1234567

anyone know if we can leave to use the bathroom in these exams? do we need to let them know, etc?

awsah

law1234567 wrote: »

anyone know if we can leave to use the bathroom in these exams? do we need to let them know, etc?

yes we can use the bathroom and we have to notify them, I'm not sure how exactly...put a "back in 5 mins" sign in front of the camera?