nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

RandolphEsq

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

Find more posts tagged with

fe1 preparation

fe1's

Quick Links

Comments

nuac

Unless you have been informed that 2014 changes will not be examined ( which would be unusual at this stage ) you should, imho, be ready to deal with them.

Good luck

Pickpocket

The midnight oil is being well and truly scorched tonight.

tobeginbegin

for EU, would leaving out competition, Brussels Regulations,and criminal proceedings q for EU be cutting myself too short?

monroe89

tobeginbegin wrote: »

for EU, would leaving out competition, Brussels Regulations,and criminal proceedings q for EU be cutting myself too short?

I'm leaving out the Brussels Regulations for sure... I would err on the side of caution and cover competition, it could come up with public undertakings aside from on it's own / case notes, it's not the worst of the topics (for me anyway.....hating fundamental rights, annulment actions...all those bitty ones)

tobeginbegin

I am short for time.. any advice on what would be the best to cover last minute? Articles 101 & 102?

monroe89

tobeginbegin wrote: »

I am short for time.. any advice on what would be the best to cover last minute? Articles 101 & 102?

If really stuck you could maybe focus on art 102; abuse of a dominant position (102 could tie in with public undertakings, art 106 as well)?

goldie1626

Can anyone tell me if I am on the right track with Union Citizenship.

Directive 2004/38 only applies in situations where the person has moved to another member state? So I am Irish, move to the UK and want to claim a Right of Residency, I will rely on the Directive.

If I am claiming a ROR, in Ireland for example and the only EU MS I have ever lived in is Ireland, then I cannot rely on the Directive but I must try to rely on the Treaty.

Regulation 1626/68 has been replaced with 492/2011 is that right? Can I still use the cases from 1626/68 such as R V Baumbast to support my answer?

I Hate EU!!!!!

goldie1626

For Criminal Proceedings what would you really address?
The European Arrest Warrant? teh 2016 Directive about Children's Rights when they have been detained and how the EU is overall trying to introduce minimal standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings??

or would you focus on the use of criminal sanctions to ensure compliance with environmental policy for example??

Drowning in info here but somehow know zilch!!!!

OMGWACA

Sorry I know this was asked already but don't think it got a reply, does anyone know when the night before notes will be published please and thanks? (specifically worried about equity because the panic really set in today!)

TheCrutzer

goldie1626 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if I am on the right track with Union Citizenship.

Directive 2004/38 only applies in situations where the person has moved to another member state? So I am Irish, move to the UK and want to claim a Right of Residency, I will rely on the Directive.

If I am claiming a ROR, in Ireland for example and the only EU MS I have ever lived in is Ireland, then I cannot rely on the Directive but I must try to rely on the Treaty.

Regulation 1626/68 has been replaced with 492/2011 is that right? Can I still use the cases from 1626/68 such as R V Baumbast to support my answer?

I Hate EU!!!!!

With regards to the directive vs treaty for a ROR, my understanding of that is that the Directive is only applicable for EUROPEAN citizens who wish to move/reside in another MS so in such a situation you could only rely on the treaty if you were a 3rd Country National like in Zambruno where he couldn't rely on the Directive because he wasn't a citizen but he could rely on A20.

And for the regulation, in the notes I have, at the start it says Regulation 492\2011 then says (formerly 1612/68) but then just shoots into the cases. So as far as I am aware the cases are still relevant. Especially the Matlock case I think as it changes the approach of the Akrich case.

That's all just my understanding of it though. Could easily be wrong. I think at this stage though I don't really care, I can't learn anything else. There's just so much of it.

BASHBAG

Hey everyone,

Due to unforeseen (and incredibly annoying) circumstances my revision time for company has been cut in half.

I have covered:
1. Single Legal Personality
2. Directors
3. Restrictions and Disqualifications
4. Transfer and Transmission of Shares
5. Corporate Borrowing
6. Shareholder Protection
7. Realisation of Corporate Assets

I am hoping to get through maybe another 1 or 2 topics and would be very grateful for any suggestions of what would be the most important topics to try and get through.

Cheers

Redo91

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Due to unforeseen (and incredibly annoying) circumstances my revision time for company has been cut in half.

I have covered:
1. Single Legal Personality
2. Directors
3. Restrictions and Disqualifications
4. Transfer and Transmission of Shares
5. Corporate Borrowing
6. Shareholder Protection
7. Realisation of Corporate Assets

I am hoping to get through maybe another 1 or 2 topics and would be very grateful for any suggestions of what would be the most important topics to try and get through.

Cheers

It's my first time sitting it so probably not the best person to be advising you but I'd recommend doing corporate authority/corporate capacity.

BASHBAG

Redo91 wrote: »

It's my first time sitting it so probably not the best person to be advising you but I'd recommend doing corporate authority/corporate capacity.

I had been avoiding it because I was previously told it is very dull, but I'll lash into it for the rest of the night and try to break the back of it.

Thanks for the reply!

Redo91

BASHBAG wrote: »

I had been avoiding it because I was previously told it is very dull, but I'll lash into it for the rest of the night and try to break the back of it.

Thanks for the reply!

I don't find it too bad funnily enough. Penny dropped with me on the topic today and I feel I've a good grasp of it. Much prefer it to winding up and corporate borrowing at least. It's pretty frequently examined so if you can at all you should give it a try. Best of luck!

laurenburne

Does anyone else find the statute of limitations horrible to study or is it just me ?

All the dates

Yoop

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hey everyone,

Due to unforeseen (and incredibly annoying) circumstances my revision time for company has been cut in half.

I have covered:
1. Single Legal Personality
2. Directors
3. Restrictions and Disqualifications
4. Transfer and Transmission of Shares
5. Corporate Borrowing
6. Shareholder Protection
7. Realisation of Corporate Assets

I am hoping to get through maybe another 1 or 2 topics and would be very grateful for any suggestions of what would be the most important topics to try and get through.

Cheers

I would also recommend doing one or two of Examinership/Receivership/Winding Up.

BASHBAG

Yoop wrote: »

I would also recommend doing one or two of Examinership/Receivership/Winding Up.

Ya I was going to try and get through Examinership and Liquidation if I have the time. I think receivership came up last year so not going to go near it.

Do you think it would be possible to tackle the two of them in a day, or would I be better off favouring one over the other?

Thanks for the suggestion.

the great communicator

Don't do examinership it literally never comes up.
Receivership and Liquidations came up last paper and they're not particularly common either.

Your best bet from what's left is corporate authority and corporate capacity.

SLP, unfair/fraud preference and restriction of directors are usually bankers and they weren't on last paper.
Between them and corporate borrowing you'll probably have four questions guaranteed out of what you have already so I wouldn't worry too much.

BASHBAG

the great communicator wrote: »

Don't do examinership it literally never comes up.
Receivership and Liquidations came up last paper and they're not particularly common either.

Your best bet from what's left is corporate authority and corporate capacity.

SLP, unfair/fraud preference and restriction of directors are usually bankers and they weren't on last paper.
Between them and corporate borrowing you'll probably have four questions guaranteed out of what you have already so I wouldn't worry too much.

That's music to my ears:D You just brought the fear level down a few notches.

Cheers!

cup of tea

Unfortunately I passed the dreaded 2 out of 3 last time out so have to resit. I asked this question on my last sitting but didn't get an answer, wondering could anyone help. I'm half thinking of leaving these quia timet q out all together and taking a risk seeing as it came up in the last sitting.The book I'm using from one of the Fe1 colleges has the injunction chapter set out all over the place........

I'm a bit confused with September 2014 q3 injunction question re an injunction to stop the fishfarm. It is a prohibatory quia timet injuntion but is it assumed it is interlocatory even though we don't know when the fish farm is going to happen unlike the quarrying questions happening in 2 weeks?

if it is interloc, Campus Oil applies but where does Szabo come into things in an interloc inj bar saying that quia timet and non quia timet are the same test?

The exam reports mention Szabo but i thought Szabo only applied to perpetual injuctions, is it that Szabo goes to deciding if it is a fair and bona fide question? Im very confused.

Ferry.Man

cup of tea wrote: »

Unfortunately I passed the dreaded 2 out of 3 last time out so have to resit. I asked this question on my last sitting but didn't get an answer, wondering could anyone help. I'm half thinking of leaving these quia timet q out all together and taking a risk seeing as it came up in the last sitting.The book I'm using from one of the Fe1 colleges has the injunction chapter set out all over the place........

I'm a bit confused with September 2014 q3 injunction question re an injunction to stop the fishfarm. It is a prohibatory quia timet injuntion but is it assumed it is interlocatory even though we don't know when the fish farm is going to happen unlike the quarrying questions happening in 2 weeks?

if it is interloc, Campus Oil applies but where does Szabo come into things in an interloc inj bar saying that quia timet and non quia timet are the same test?

The exam reports mention Szabo but i thought Szabo only applied to perpetual injuctions, is it that Szabo goes to deciding if it is a fair and bona fide question? Im very confused.

I'm leaving that section of injunctions out and only covering Mareva Injunctions. It seems to take a while to cover but this is my first time sitting the FE1s!!

Yoop

BASHBAG wrote: »

Ya I was going to try and get through Examinership and Liquidation if I have the time. I think receivership came up last year so not going to go near it.

Do you think it would be possible to tackle the two of them in a day, or would I be better off favouring one over the other?

Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm going to have to disagree with the other poster and recommend you do both, especially if you're not preparing a question on the effects and changes of the new Act; there's a lot of legislation on winding up and you're going to have the Act. Examinership isn't that long so you could get through them in a day.

Lots of things rarely come up and then appear, just as some topics which are considered safe topics that are almost always examined are often left out every few sittings - once it's on the syllabus it's examinable. I know you're stuck for time but it's best to cover as many topics as you can; you don't have to know them all in the same detail; sometimes a basic knowledge and a few cases applied correctly will be enough to get you over the line.

BASHBAG

Yoop wrote: »

I'm going to have to disagree with the other poster and recommend you do both, especially if you're not preparing a question on the effects and changes of the new Act; there's a lot of legislation on winding up and you're going to have the Act. Examinership isn't that long so you could get through them in a day.

Lots of things rarely come up and then appear, just as some topics which are considered safe topics that are almost always examined are often left out every few sittings - once it's on the syllabus it's examinable. I know you're stuck for time but it's best to cover as many topics as you can; you don't have to know them all in the same detail; sometimes a basic knowledge and a few cases applied correctly will be enough to get you over the line.

Thanks for the advice.

I'll see how I get on getting through corporate authority and then, if time is permits it read through liquidation and examinership a few times.

monroe89

cup of tea wrote: »

Unfortunately I passed the dreaded 2 out of 3 last time out so have to resit. I asked this question on my last sitting but didn't get an answer, wondering could anyone help. I'm half thinking of leaving these quia timet q out all together and taking a risk seeing as it came up in the last sitting.The book I'm using from one of the Fe1 colleges has the injunction chapter set out all over the place........

I'm a bit confused with September 2014 q3 injunction question re an injunction to stop the fishfarm. It is a prohibatory quia timet injuntion but is it assumed it is interlocatory even though we don't know when the fish farm is going to happen unlike the quarrying questions happening in 2 weeks?

if it is interloc, Campus Oil applies but where does Szabo come into things in an interloc inj bar saying that quia timet and non quia timet are the same test?

The exam reports mention Szabo but i thought Szabo only applied to perpetual injuctions, is it that Szabo goes to deciding if it is a fair and bona fide question? Im very confused.

Hi there,
Just in relation to the Szabo piece, Geoghegan referred to there being no difference between the legal principles to be applied to interlocutory quia timet injunctions and any other interlocutory injunction, i.e. the Campus Oil principles should be applied; fair and bona fide question.

Separately however, for mandatory interlocutory injunctions the courts are less willing to grant these compared with prohibitory injunctions and so the test in Maha Lingam is applied where it is necessary for an applicant to show at least that he has a strong case that he is likely to succeed at the hearing of the action - higher standard than establishing a fair and bona fide question.

This means that if the interlocutory quia timet injunction being sought is prohibitory the Campus Oil principles will apply, while if the interlocutory quia timet injunction is mandatory the Lingam test applies, i.e. establish you have a strong case and are likely to succeed.

So if it is a prohibitory interlocutory injunction in the problem q then the Campus Oil principles should apply, i.e. fair and bona fide.

I hope that makes some sense, sorry if I've interpreted part of your question incorrectly - I think I'm trying to iron it out in my own head!

cup of tea

Thanks for the reply. I'm wondering when Szabo says 'p needs to show substantial risk of danger'.....this only relates to perpetual injunction stage.

As at interloc stage the proofs are either Lingham or Campus Oil along with damages etc. The only way Szabo comes in to the interloc equation is by saying there is no difference in the proofs between quia timet and any other type of injunction.

shellbm

Am I right in saying we all need to drop the Companies Act in by Wednesday morning?

Yoop

shellbm wrote: »

Am I right in saying we all need to drop the Companies Act in by Wednesday morning?

Yep. If you don't get a chance you can drop it in on the morning and get it an hour into the exam.

LawGuy2016

Hi everybody,

Just wondering does anybody have a sample essay on the main effects/changes/reforms of the new Companies Act they could kindly send me? I know some of the Revision Schools gave out a sample essay for the October 2016 sitting.

I have notes on most of the other main topics that I am more than happy to trade.

Thanks in advance.

monroe89

cup of tea wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I'm wondering when Szabo says 'p needs to show substantial risk of danger'.....this only relates to perpetual injunction stage.

As at interloc stage the proofs are either Lingham or Campus Oil along with damages etc. The only way Szabo comes in to the interloc equation is by saying there is no difference in the proofs between quia timet and any other type of injunction.

To be honest, I didn't think Szabo applied to perpetual injunctions, I thought it was just in the context of quia timet/interlocutory...apologies if wrong. For perpetual injunctions the plaintiff has to demonstrate that they have a right in need of protection, i.e. legal, constitutional...and they need to have a sufficient interest in the protection of that right. The infringement of the right has already occurred and relief is being sought.

For quia timet they are looking at a threatened or apprehended breach of the plaintiff's rights, it hasn't happened yet, but the plaintiff has to establish that the threat is either very certain or imminent to occur. I would be cautious to incorporate perpetual injunctions into a quia timet problem - but that's just my two cents; I understood them as being quite distinct based on whether the infringment had already occurred or not.

In Szabo Geoghegan first looked at a strict test (manchester corporation case I think...) which looked at the plaintiff needing to show that there was a strong probability the apprehended mischief would occur. He thought this was too high a standard for the case in question and that's where the Campus Oil / Lingum distinction came from.

LLBeatle

I failed 3 out of 4 last time, all in the 40s so now I'm deeply regretting my decision not to recheck.

I'm just wondering, if anyone had to guess what you could leave out for equity, what would you guess?