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

michaelot97

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Was all of that not kinda irrelevant though because 2004 to 2016 is 12 years, so he didn't show up on time and she had already successfully adversely possessed it by the time the lease was mentioned/permission was given. And is Barry was still the owner in 2019 then Dermot doesn't matter.
I still went through the motions of addressing the issue but it felt pointless

I mentioned that we didn't know for sure if it was 12 years as we were not given the months and went through both possibilities (of it being over and under 12 years).

FE1Rookie

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Was all of that not kinda irrelevant though because 2004 to 2016 is 12 years, so he didn't show up on time and she had already successfully adversely possessed it by the time the lease was mentioned/permission was given. And is Barry was still the owner in 2019 then Dermot doesn't matter.
I still went through the motions of addressing the issue but it felt pointless

I couldn't tell was the year of the visit, or the year of his death the one that was wrong. Usually in adverse problem questions the visits occur in the middle of the 12 year limitation period so I assume that the year of the visit may be wrong. But I couldn't say for sure the the law society messed up on that question so surely they will have to mark that one easier. I still discussed the issues correctly either way

Wonderstruck

CoconutHeadMia wrote: »

How did barry die in 2014 but went on holiday in 2016?

He went on holiday to the big resort up in the sky. Barry is watching over all of us right now </3 RIP

Red.95

Iso_123 wrote: »

Did anyone else say that barry saying she could continue to use the land and entering into negotiations for the lease could be an issue re permission? ie that the possession may not be adverse if this is found to be permission

I just said then that she would have to invite the court to follow ja pye and durack and find that the squatters intention to possess the land in a manner inconsistent with the true owners title is what is relevant and not the land owners future intended use?

does this sound right to anyone.. Also I am such an idiot i didn't even notice barry died before he visited the land I just answered it as if he had visited in 2016 and died after

I didn't notice either and was freaking out when I saw all of this! I actually don't think it will be relevant I just took it as she start using the land in 2004 and then he came in 2016 to visit. Doesn't really matter when he died? I think the point was - did she get AP in that time, if she did shelia get it.
If not because Barry asserted title ie possession then the clock starts again and Selia doesn't have the 12 years anyway regardless
I stated both events that if him visiting was considered notice (possession) then she won't have AP but if because he didn't actually follow through and ann continued on to use it as if she owned it. She may get AP.
Sometimes I think it's not necessarily the correct answer it's more can you show the case law. How it changes from 'something different than the intention of the owner in Jack v leigh' to the modern position of just excluding the world at large in Durack Manufacturing ' and JA Pye Oxford decision and just make your case. Sounds like we were on the same track!!

Wonderstruck

Another thought, was someone assuming the identity of Barry?!

I wish I could see the actual question but due to this software no one is going to have the exam paper

shaunadennyham

Wonderstruck wrote: »

Another thought, was someone assuming the identity of Barry?!

I wish I could see the actual question but due to this software no one is going to have the exam paper

Hahahaha maybe - would the examiner be so cruel ???

Wonderstruck

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Hahahaha maybe - would the examiner be so cruel ???

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by lack of proofreading. I would have went wild on the theories, being like the applicants were hallucinating, a man stole the identity of Barry, Barry faked his own death to try to stop the clock, Barry came back from hell itself to stop the squatters, everyone is lying in this affidavit etc.

shaunadennyham

Wonderstruck wrote: »

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by lack of proofreading. I would have went wild on the theories, being like the applicants were hallucinating, a man stole the identity of Barry, Barry faked his own death to try to stop the clock, Barry came back from hell itself to stop the squatters, everyone is lying in this affidavit etc.

Hahahahahahahahahah thank you for the lols

Wonderstruck

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Hahahahahahahahahah thank you for the lols

I'm sure you'll be fine, I remember once in undergrad there was a question I cannot even remember what the question was on all I remember was that the fee simple owner was married to the applicant but he was gone like 20 years so I was like, screw it let's have him declared dead. This wasnt even on the course at all and I barely know the procedure but I was like it gets us where we want to be, I haven't been given any proof he's alive hell is there an enduring power of attorney in play? So I just ran with it, I'm sure the examiner was like what is she playing at?

nmurphy1441

How do we think marks will be allocated for the Barry question though?

Hazel774

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

How do we think marks will be allocated for the Barry question though?

I didn't sit property myself but I assume that will have to be taken into account for you, I'd imagine you'll get marks once you didn't state the wrong law, and you applied it correctly to the facts as you interpreted them

So annoying when they have typo's in the paper, it can totally throw you! But I'm sure it will be taken into account when marking

Aoibhin511

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

How do we think marks will be allocated for the Barry question though?

I think they'll have to let us away with murder given that it was their mistake and we had no opportunity to clarify it with an invigilator as we would have had in a real exam

BookFast

For property today - the question re the Indian restaurant, I got so confused reading it because I initially noted the facts were similar to the Wong case, but on further reading I thought it was probably a landlord and tenant question because it involved a lease agreement.
I didn’t do the question in the end because I ended up confusing myself but just wondering what other people’s thoughts were on this question? Was it a question on easements or landlord and tenant?

bkm2020

BookFast wrote: »

For property today - the question re the Indian restaurant, I got so confused reading it because I initially noted the facts were similar to the Wong case, but on further reading I thought it was probably a landlord and tenant question because it involved a lease agreement.
I didn’t do the question in the end because I ended up confusing myself but just wondering what other people’s thoughts were on this question? Was it a question on easements or landlord and tenant?

I was the exact same. And I was confident for rights of ways but it really threw me off. Really disappointed in myself that I didn't continue with it. Picked 2 weak questions then. Done now anyway. Onto the next one!

Healyjhow

Oh feck it I did ease of necessity for this question thinking it was the wong case 🥺

bkm2020 wrote: »

I was the exact same. And I was confident for rights of ways but it really threw me off. Really disappointed in myself that I didn't continue with it. Picked 2 weak questions then. Done now anyway. Onto the next one!

shaunadennyham

Healyjhow wrote: »

Oh feck it I did ease of necessity for this question thinking it was the wong case 🥺

It was an easement q - a similar q appeared a few years ago

orlaghs

BookFast wrote: »

For property today - the question re the Indian restaurant, I got so confused reading it because I initially noted the facts were similar to the Wong case, but on further reading I thought it was probably a landlord and tenant question because it involved a lease agreement.
I didn’t do the question in the end because I ended up confusing myself but just wondering what other people’s thoughts were on this question? Was it a question on easements or landlord and tenant?

I'm pretty sure it was easement? Wong case, easement by necessity, right to lay pipes in Hennessy v An Bord Pleanala (I think)
That's what I wrote anyways lol

nmurphy1441

For people the answered the capacity and formal requirements for a will question... did you talk in detail about extrinsic evidence? Or even mention it?

bkm2020

Healyjhow wrote: »

Oh feck it I did ease of necessity for this question thinking it was the wong case 🥺

Sorry I meant easements!

shaunadennyham

Frustration and Covid potentially appearing on contract next week do we think ?

LeGal97

BookFast wrote: »

For property today - the question re the Indian restaurant, I got so confused reading it because I initially noted the facts were similar to the Wong case, but on further reading I thought it was probably a landlord and tenant question because it involved a lease agreement.
I didn’t do the question in the end because I ended up confusing myself but just wondering what other people’s thoughts were on this question? Was it a question on easements or landlord and tenant?

The exact same happened me... I wouldn't mind but I started to answer on easements and I panicked then and waffled on about Landlord obligations, although I mentioned Wong... It has probably cost me the paper now and my other questions were good and I knew easements

FE1new

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

For people the answered the capacity and formal requirements for a will question... did you talk in detail about extrinsic evidence? Or even mention it?

No didn't mention it, just s77 and s78. Went through each one and gave cases and examples. The question was the formalities and requirements needed for a valid will in Irish law. Extrinsic evidence is for how it is interpreted.

BookFast

bkm2020 wrote: »

I was the exact same. And I was confident for rights of ways but it really threw me off. Really disappointed in myself that I didn't continue with it. Picked 2 weak questions then. Done now anyway. Onto the next one!

I feel the same! But I’m sure we’ve done enough to pass anyway, fingers crossed

AlexTG356

Does anyone know when the current contract examiner started in their position?

BookFast

LeGal97 wrote: »

The exact same happened me... I wouldn't mind but I started to answer on easements and I panicked then and waffled on about Landlord obligations, although I mentioned Wong... It has probably cost me the paper now and my other questions were good and I knew easements

I wouldn’t worry about it too much, 4 great questions plus that one - which doesn’t seem too bad from what you’ve said - could definitely be enough to pass

nmurphy1441

FE1new wrote: »

No didn't mention it, just s77 and s78. Went through each one and gave cases and examples. The question was the formalities and requirements needed for a valid will in Irish law. Extrinsic evidence is for how it is interpreted.

I didn’t mention it either, I’m only second guessing myself now as I normally do after an exam!

FE1new

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I didn’t mention it either, I’m only second guessing myself now as I normally do after an exam!

I'm the exact same! I keep going over the S111 and S117 question and the Finding one I keep trying to pick them apart. Ah well onto the next one.

Red.95

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

For people the answered the capacity and formal requirements for a will question... did you talk in detail about extrinsic evidence? Or even mention it?

I flagged it and one or 2 cases but not more than a paragraph just didn't have time to go into detail

LawStudent1234

Does anyone have sample answers for Contract? would really appreciate it

Red.95

FE1new wrote: »

I'm the exact same! I keep going over the S111 and S117 question and the Finding one I keep trying to pick them apart. Ah well onto the next one.

Was there a s111 question on the legal right share? Just one in s117 the moral obligations to the child?