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

BASHBAG wrote: »

Thanks, I have that pretty much covered and I reckon you'd nearly be able to pull enough out of the treaties to pass a question on them. Still getting worried I won't have enough covered, especially considering I have constitutional and EU back to back so have to split the study time for the week.

EU is doable dont worry too much! and the legislation is there has more than you think so just know where it is! especially the 2004/38 directive, i didnt realise it had nearly all the principles i needed to know until the night before!

Now constitutional on the other hand i just dont get!

Best of luck

Mayo91 wrote: »

Pal, the preamble, emergency & war, international law & const are very rare. Also religous freedom.

I would do Freedom of expression
Family and education
Judicial review & fundamental rights (proportionality)
Property Rights
equality

I dont want to be someone telling you youre screwed, but I wouldn't advise on those anyway. Thats just my opinion. You might know something I don't know, thats just my interpretation.

My heart sank for this guy until I head his post again haha -- think he means those are the topics he's leaving out. Phew !

Does anyone know if we can had in legislation the morning of the exam. i leave in the country and wont be up until the morning of the exam.

All I had to pull out of criminal today as I'm too sick. I only studied for the three which means all exams are screwed if I don't pick another. I've to study for contract till Wednesday. I have my notes done for property next Thursday. Would anyone recommend or advise would it be doable to pick up equity which is Friday week? I've no notes nothing. Is it a big subject and what would the main topics be that I'd have to cover ? Any help at all would be appreciate thanks

N.b or tort ? I just realised I've no book for equity ;( my book for tort is independent colleges 2013 would they be OK ??

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

All I had to pull out of criminal today as I'm too sick. I only studied for the three which means all exams are screwed if I don't pick another. I've to study for contract till Wednesday. I have my notes done for property next Thursday. Would anyone recommend or advise would it be doable to pick up equity which is Friday week? I've no notes nothing. Is it a big subject and what would the main topics be that I'd have to cover ? Any help at all would be appreciate thanks

N.b or tort ? I just realised I've no book for equity ;( my book for tort is independent colleges 2013 would they be OK ??

I would probably go for equity over tort... a few topics are fairly similar to property and it's not as big as tort... it depends on what you preferred in your undergrad though

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Thank you kindly everyone and for the pms too really helped me out when I just hit a brick wall. X I see there is 14 chapters in equity will just have to cut down and focus on major ones

/Mod deletion/
I came out sure I failed it last sitting having only answered 4 full questions and then just having a shot in the dark with a few bullet points for my 5th, but I passed it with a good bit to spare.

For Company, last minute cutting down starting to happen!

I’m doing;

Intro
SLP
Directors
Restriction
Shareholder Protection and Remedies
Share Transfer
Corporate Borrowing
Receivership
Liquidation
Realisation of Assets
Corporate Authority

What should I focus on?

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Hey guys. Ive decided to sit equity next week as criminal didnt go well for me today (mind went blank) and I’m only sitting 3. Anyone have any tips as to what I can study? Have all my notes just need to know what I can cut out etc. thank you!!

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Hi guys, I've noticed that in constitutional a question can come up about how the proportionality test has been applied in the area of property rights, and I'm just wondering what case law would be good to discuss in a question like that. I assume I'd describe the Heaney (and Tuohy?) test for proportionality and then go through some property cases. I know the proportionality test was applied in Clinton v Quirke and An Blascaod Mor Teo, and that in Gorman v Min for Environment it was held that the test for whether a provision is an unjust attack is the Heaney test, but I'd need a good few other cases to flesh out any answer. Any help much appreciated!

Check out the RE Article 26 cases as these delve into the topic(s) a bit.

Any predictions on company for tomorrow? After October's paper I'm terrified for another really obscure paper again!!

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Legislation:

You can drop the legislation in the morning of the exam cant you?

I did it for the last sitting anyway.

Yep so I've been told here anyways! I'm doing so on Thursday

Chuckler wrote: »

What came up in the Criminal Paper today?

Infancy
Murder
Sexual Offences (advise the DPP on the charges that could be raised in 4 different scenarios).
Bail
Provocation
Incitement
Public Order Offences
Harassment
Endangering Traffic
Perjury
Contempt of Court
Property Offences (advise the DPP on charges that could be raised in 4 different scenarios)
Imposing criminal liability for omissions

EU law: no competition law at all on last sittings paper. do we think it could come up twice? I wouldn't mind that at all to be honest, I strangely enjoy the topic

Can anyone give me a steer on Q1 from the last Constitutional Paper?

In summary: Gemma sells her car, the buyer deposits €25k cash in her bank account. She later find the bank have frozen her account at the request of the Gardai. The Gardai tell Gemma they've frozen it because they're suspicious about the deposit. They have done so using their powers under the Investigation Assistance Act 2016, which allows them to make a request that any bank deny access to an account "where it is believed that this may assist in ongoing investigations". Gemma asks how long this will take, but the Gardai won't tell her. Advise Gemma if there are any constitutional grounds on which she can challenge this.

It's clearly an interference with her property rights. But I can't figure out what else is going on! Any thoughts would be gratefully received.