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

Law1997

TORT

Would it be possible to leave out Public Authorities and defamation?

Thinking of doing:
Negligence
Hedley Byrne
Pure Economic Loss
Nervous Shock
Professional Negligence
Nuisance
Trespass
Rylands
Occupiers Liability
Employers Liability
Vicarious Liability
Product Liability
Limitations
Damages
Goods service detinue

Law1997

Fe119 wrote: »

I'm thinking of just covering:
Injunctions (all)
Charitable Trusts
Trusteeship
Estoppel
Recission
Specific Performance
Rectification
3 Certainties

and then if I have time:
Strong v Bird
Presumed Resulting Trust
DMC

What are peoples thoughts on this? Has anyone heard of any predictions beyond the expectation of Injunctions?

Definitely do Strong v Bird and DMC! They come up so so often and are a lovely note q if it suits you. Secret trusts are very straight forward. Presumed resulting trusts saved my paper last sitting.

2eF

Would anybody have a company revision guide? I can swap for any other revision Guide.

iamanengine

My study timetable has ended up leaving me with 4 days to cram for Constitutional...

Big yikes

lawgrad15

CRIMINAL

Anybody know if we need to know the sections off word for word? Say like is it okay to discuss theft, burglary, assault etc. or in our own words? Thanks a mill!

leavingcert17

iamanengine wrote: »

My study timetable has ended up leaving me with 4 days to cram for Constitutional...

Big yikes

Have you learned it off and need to revise? Or...

iamanengine

leavingcert17 wrote: »

Have you learned it off and need to revise? Or...

Lol no it's not learned off

Notes are done, and I am fairly familiar with them as in, I've read them a few times...

Edit - In fairness, intense cramming has always been the name of my game

rightytighty

I’ve spent the whole day learning off tort and can’t seem to recall any of it

iamanengine

rightytighty wrote: »

I’ve spent the whole day doing tort and can’t seem to recall any of it

Tort is being ignored until about 30 minutes after the EU exam...:rolleyes:

Breacnua

lawgrad15 wrote: »

CRIMINAL

Anybody know if we need to know the sections off word for word? Say like is it okay to discuss theft, burglary, assault etc. or in our own words? Thanks a mill!

Doesn’t have to be by heart
Mine wasn’t and got 13 m in all 5 questions

rightytighty

Did you get 65 overall?! Did you think he was a nice marker?

ahhhhhFE1s

iamanengine wrote: »

Lol no it's not learned off

Notes are done, and I am fairly familiar with them as in, I've read them a few times...

Edit - In fairness, intense cramming has always been the name of my game

Ya I'm nearly the same.. trying to cover 3 topics a day until the exam and leave a day spare before the exam.. My justification is rote learning too early can backfire, hard to recall anything from two weeks before the exams

user115

For charitable trusts, is the public benefit requirement not necessary for trust for relief of poverty or economic hardship?Like you need not consider public benefit at all if gift is for poverty.

Also is there a major difference in public benefit prior and after 2009 Charities Act?

Breacnua

rightytighty wrote: »

Did you get 65 overall?! Did you think he was a nice marker?

Yeah 65
He’s a fair marker once you’ve a broad spread of the course and unlike other examiners who want specifics he will give marks where he can so write as much as you can. Throw all down.

lawgrad15

Breacnua wrote: »

Doesn’t have to be by heart
Mine wasn’t and got 13 m in all 5 questions

Brilliant - thanks for that!!

rightytighty

Breacnua wrote: »

Yeah 65
He’s a fair marker once you’ve a broad spread of the course and unlike other examiners who want specifics he will give marks where he can so write as much as you can. Throw all down.

That’s reassuring thanks a million

lawstudentirl

user115 wrote: »

For charitable trusts, is the public benefit requirement not necessary for trust for relief of poverty or economic hardship?Like you need not consider public benefit at all if gift is for poverty.

Also is there a major difference in public benefit prior and after 2009 Charities Act?

For poverty:
Pre-2009 - common law said you didn’t need public benefit since alleviating poverty, even if just of a family member, is helping society.
Post-2009 - you need to prove public benefit.

So before 2009 Act poverty had a different standard, but now all types (poverty, education, etc.) all have the same requirement to show public benefit.

nmurphy1441

Any predictions for criminal? Preferably predictions for essay type questions?

Louis Litt

Constitutional - International Agreements

Whats the difference between being laid before the Dail vs approved by Dail?

GM228

Louis Litt wrote: »

Constitutional - International Agreements

Whats the difference between being laid before the Dail vs approved by Dail?

Laid simply means officially presented to the house in accordance with the relevant rules and standing orders of the house, and approved is the majority acceptance of the treaty by the house.

Breacnua

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Any predictions for criminal? Preferably predictions for essay type questions?

Omissions
Recklessness
Self defence

iamanengine

Anyone have notes for Right to Liberty? pls

Louis Litt

Does anyone have something short on Wansboro v DPP 2019?

iamanengine

Louis Litt wrote: »

Does anyone have something short on Wansboro v DPP 2019?

I have it down as a 2018 case? Could be wrong, my notes aren't written very well but this is what I have...someone else may have something better

Wansboro v DPP [2018] SC followed from Moore v DPP which found S.99 Criminal Justice Act 2006 was unconstitutional. Applicant had a suspended sentence already imposed and later pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. Pursuant to S.99 both sentences were imposed consecutively. On foot of the Moore decision applicant argued that his detention was unlawful. Sought to distinguish A v Governor of Arbour Hill on basis that finality had not been reached, his appeal was still pending. SC accepted this, detention unlawful. As a general rule an issue not raised during trial can not be raised on an appeal. However SC allowed it here as applicant had simply assumed S.99 was constitutional and operated on the basis that it was good law. Can also be allowed where the issue of a fundamental injustice arises or that there was a reasonably explained substantial error leading to apprehension of real injustice.

Louis Litt

iamanengine wrote: »

I have it down as a 2018 case? Could be wrong, my notes aren't written very well but this is what I have...someone else may have something better

Wansboro v DPP [2018] SC followed from Moore v DPP which found S.99 Criminal Justice Act 2006 was unconstitutional. Applicant had a suspended sentence already imposed and later pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. Pursuant to S.99 both sentences were imposed consecutively. On foot of the Moore decision applicant argued that his detention was unlawful. Sought to distinguish A v Governor of Arbour Hill on basis that finality had not been reached, his appeal was still pending. SC accepted this, detention unlawful. As a general rule an issue not raised during trial can not be raised on an appeal. However SC allowed it here as applicant had simply assumed S.99 was constitutional and operated on the basis that it was good law. Can also be allowed where the issue of a fundamental injustice arises or that there was a reasonably explained substantial error leading to apprehension of real injustice.

Thank you! The night before notes are really showing the holes in my manaul thats a year old.

iamanengine

Louis Litt wrote: »

Thank you! The night before notes are really showing the holes in my manaul thats a year old.

Yep same for me. Spent most of yesterday going through my notes and adding in the 2019 cases from the night before notes, not ideal so close to the exam!!

Caroline Hamblyn

What are predictions for equity & property? Thanks

keelfe1s

Hiya.. I've company act 2014 for sale if anyone looking for it. 50€.. Galway city area

luimneachabu73

Contract

Could someone explain the situation regarding penalty clauses in simple terms please?

i.e. Dunlop, Cavendish/Parking Eye?

Thank you

Jeremiah25

Supremacy/Conferral worth covering for EU?