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

twitchandsweep · 23-09-2018 03:45PM

Hi guys hope everyone’s getting on okay with their study, not long now!

Just wondering if anyone has the March 2018 sitting of either contract, criminal or property? The EPS I have are only to 2017 - it won’t let me buy them on the lawsocietys website.

Anyone know the topics that came up? Starting to panic a little!

Thanks a mill

Tony_TwoLegs · 23-09-2018 04:03PM

mariealice wrote: »

Oh ok , I hadn't heard that, that was just my view on the matter , maybe they will switch up the pattern and ask it twice in a row but I'm screwed if they do because I don't have enough time to cover it

As a self professed expert on Equity FE1 from having to resit it 3 times I would say Mareva won't come up. I passed it in March. Notably my 5 other FE1s to date I passed without a bother. Either I'm bad at Equity or the examiner is hyper-critical.
There are patterns to Equity I witnessed. Ppl who did grind schools shared helpful predictions too....
You need patterned predictions as we can't learn EVERYTHING in such minute detail. No profession requires that in a closed book exam.

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 04:27PM

Tony_TwoLegs wrote: »

As a self professed expert on Equity FE1 from having to resit it 3 times I would say Mareva won't come up. I passed it in March. Notably my 5 other FE1s to date I passed without a bother. Either I'm bad at Equity or the examiner is hyper-critical.
There are patterns to Equity I witnessed. Ppl who did grind schools shared helpful predictions too....
You need patterned predictions as we can't learn EVERYTHING in such minute detail. No profession requires that in a closed book exam.

That's rough. Do you mind me asking what you did different the time you passed versus the times you didn't? Couldn't agree more with that point, there's so much in equity you just can't know it all.

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 04:37PM

Can a Quia Timet be both mandatory and prohibitory? It's proactive as opposed to reactive obviously but it can be both right?

Supermax1988 · 23-09-2018 05:42PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Can a Quia Timet be both mandatory and prohibitory? It's proactive as opposed to reactive obviously but it can be both right?

Yeah it can be both. Last time QT came up (October 17 I think?) it was a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The guy was looking to make the other party hand over some paintings on foot of an agreement.

The last time QT came up before that (one of the 2016 papers) it was a prohibitory interlocutory injunction. The woman you were advising was trying to stop a TV show from filming next door to her spa resort.

HappySlappy123 · 23-09-2018 06:03PM

mariealice wrote: »

Looks pretty solid , if you have time maybe throw in reckless and fraudulent trading I think its due a run but I reckon you should be pretty well covered! (I hope , I've covered more or less the same as you but I've done fraudulent and reckless trading and reform and left out liquidation)

If you don't mind me asking, why have you liquidation left out, as opposed to receivership? Is receivership due a run rather than liquidation?

mariealice · 23-09-2018 06:38PM

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking, why have you liquidation left out, as opposed to receivership? Is receivership due a run rather than liquidation?

Its just down to the fact that I hate the topic and timewise I just made a call to leave it out even though it is due a run from what I can see, I'm just hoping I've covered enough other topics that if it comes up I won't have to do it! Also receivership is due a run I think but I don't know if its any more likely to come up then liquidation

LawBoy2018 · 23-09-2018 06:50PM

Does anyone have a public authorities negligence/duty of care sample answer they could send on to me? Q.2 March 2017 would be ideal! I have loads of stuff that I can swap.

Teamhrach · 23-09-2018 06:50PM

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Yeah it can be both. Last time QT came up (October 17 I think?) it was a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The guy was looking to make the other party hand over some paintings on foot of an agreement.

The last time QT came up before that (one of the 2016 papers) it was a prohibitory interlocutory injunction. The woman you were advising was trying to stop a TV show from filming next door to her spa resort.

Thank God someone asked this! I only prepared a prohibitory QT!

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 07:13PM

Teamhrach wrote: »

Thank God someone asked this! I only prepared a prohibitory QT!

I'm glad I'm not the only one getting a little bogged down on all the injunctions. In the report though she suggested that the Autumn 2017 one wasn't QT, she just called it a "mandatory interlocutory injunction" and didn't call it QT, that's actually kind of why I'm preparing QT as I think it's really due a run?

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 07:14PM

mariealice wrote: »

Its just down to the fact that I hate the topic and timewise I just made a call to leave it out even though it is due a run from what I can see, I'm just hoping I've covered enough other topics that if it comes up I won't have to do it! Also receivership is due a run I think but I don't know if its any more likely to come up then liquidation

If it's anything to either of you I think they're both likely so there's that. I think liquidation is very likely and receivers/examiners are awhile since also I think.

sapphire309 · 23-09-2018 07:19PM

Does anyone have a sample answer for QT injunction?

iamanengine · 23-09-2018 07:37PM

yournerd wrote: »

Any recent case law in contract that should be mentioned?

Just noticed some recent cases in relation to Rules of Construction for Terms.

Wood v Capita Insurance Services LTD 2017 - UK SC case. More professionally drafted a contract is the more appropriate it is to use the plain meaning rule.

The Law Society of Ireland v MIBI 2017 - SC. Confirmed principles of interpretation laid down in Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Scheme.

Also, O' Donnell J, majority:

“It is necessary to understand the entirety of an agreement and then to consider what that means for the specific issue now raised. It is necessary therefore to see the agreement and the background context, as the parties saw them at the time the agreement was made, rather than to approach it through the lens of the dispute which has arisen sometimes much later."

Found for D using Factual Matrix Rule.

However, the minority agreed with the point made in Wood. Basically that while context matters it shouldn't be over done especially where the contract was carefully and professionally drafted.

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 07:42PM

Am I right in saying that if questions so specific as the position of constructive trust fiduciaries, third parties or the new model you can't get a whole lot more than 20ish cases in? To learn more for such specific areas would surely be overdoing it?

lawlad101 · 23-09-2018 08:10PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if questions so specific as the position of constructive trust fiduciaries, third parties or the new model you can't get a whole lot more than 20ish cases in? To learn more for such specific areas would surely be overdoing it?

20 is a lot.

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 08:22PM

lawlad101 wrote: »

20 is a lot.

Not gonna lie I was stretching it at 20, glad to know that's lots

lawless11 · 23-09-2018 08:22PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if questions so specific as the position of constructive trust fiduciaries, third parties or the new model you can't get a whole lot more than 20ish cases in? To learn more for such specific areas would surely be overdoing it?

The new model I have like 7 cases max. Lol. You're scaring me a little bit.

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 08:23PM

Equity peoples, looking at a mandatory interlocutory injunction question, would you apply the standard interlocutory Campus Oil test and then go on to say how it would be different and harder to get for the case of a mandatory injunction or just go at it from a totally mandatory injunction stance?

HappySlappy123 · 23-09-2018 08:24PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

If it's anything to either of you I think they're both likely so there's that. I think liquidation is very likely and receivers/examiners are awhile since also I think.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were right! The likes of share transfer, restriction and disqualification and in particular, shareholder protection have been flogged to death so seeing some or all of those being replaced wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility

Teamhrach · 23-09-2018 08:35PM

lawless11 wrote: »

The new model I have like 7 cases max. Lol. You're scaring me a little bit.

I wrote out all the cases per topic today and it scared the life out of me. Don't know how to take out learning for equity :eek:

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 08:37PM

lawless11 wrote: »

The new model I have like 7 cases max. Lol. You're scaring me a little bit.

See I had that and had to find a few more that in truth are not that useful because with 7 I thought I'd only be able to write a page to two no? But don't be silly and let me scare you, I'm just finding it hard to get out of the undergrad style of quality over quantity, everyone has their own way!

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 08:39PM

Teamhrach wrote: »

I wrote out all the cases per topic today and it scared the life out of me. Don't know how to take out learning for equity :eek:

I haven't done anything like that yet but hate to ask and have to ask, how many was it looking like? has to be closer to 200 than 100?

Supermax1988 · 23-09-2018 08:39PM

Teamhrach wrote: »

Thank God someone asked this! I only prepared a prohibitory QT!

bigtophat13 wrote: »

In the report though she suggested that the Autumn 2017 one wasn't QT, she just called it a "mandatory interlocutory injunction" and didn't call it QT, that's actually kind of why I'm preparing QT as I think it's really due a run?

Ah lads I think I made a balls of this. Just looked at my grid and it was just Mandatory Interlocutory in Oct 17 not QT.

So yeah if ever QT was due a run it's now.

Teamhrach · 23-09-2018 08:43PM

FE1 Lady wrote: »

To anybody who has passed Constitutional? Any tips on structure etc? I am petrified everytime I look at past questions!

The fake legislation is a bit daunting at first but look at the past exam papers to see what issues he wanted to be teased out and then engage with material on that. As you're reading write notes on a black A4 and use arrows and colours (if you think it will help). It's not too bad at all. Someone said const'l is just about your opinion and that can never be wrong - so you'll have the legislation, YOUR opinion, maybe some academic commentary added in and cases. The Supreme Court book is a great help. I'd actually recommend it before doing anything else for constitutional. Constitutional Project at UCC blog is good. Read around the important recent cases - blogs, newspapers, maybe twitter. Just make sure you understand the main principes of const'l law, have a few cases for each and have your own opinion.
Sorry if none of that makes sense but hopefully it will when you've done some more work / nearer the exam

Teamhrach · 23-09-2018 08:47PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I haven't done anything like that yet but hate to ask and have to ask, how many was it looking like? has to be closer to 200 than 100?

14 flashcards with at least 10! To be fair, there's a lot of them I don't have a clue what they're about but they're backing up one sentence/important point.

I haven't studied like this before so I won't be recommending it until I pass, at some stage :rolleyes:

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 08:53PM

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Ah lads I think I made a balls of this. Just looked at my grid and it was just Mandatory Interlocutory in Oct 17 not QT.

So yeah if ever QT was due a run it's now.

Hey, at least now we know, if you were answering that style QT problem what way would you be going at it?

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 08:55PM

Teamhrach wrote: »

14 flashcards with at least 10! To be fair, there's a lot of them I don't have a clue what they're about but they're backing up one sentence/important point.

I haven't studied like this before so I won't be recommending it until I pass, at some stage :rolleyes:

Well that's terrifying but I understand, it was my style in college too and once I put equity away tonight and EU tomorrow til the break it'll be how I'll be studying contract and company. If you understand your cases and you can reduce it down to being able to recite 15 cases on a flashcard then surely it's the easiest way to remember such quantity?

lawless11 · 23-09-2018 09:01PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

See I had that and had to find a few more that in truth are not that useful because with 7 I thought I'd only be able to write a page to two no? But don't be silly and let me scare you, I'm just finding it hard to get out of the undergrad style of quality over quantity, everyone has their own way!

I suppose yes, then it's a short topic - I mean I have no idea how much of an upgrade of standard it can be (in 30min to write), but personally I don't think I'm able to do much more than 2,5-3 pages?
How would you imagine the standard to be? Throw 15 cases out and write 4 pages in half an hour? *I mean, if you can, sure it's excellent aha* I just don't think I can do that

Supermax1988 · 23-09-2018 09:12PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Hey, at least now we know, if you were answering that style QT problem what way would you be going at it?

Mandatory QT? The more I think about it the more I think she wouldn't put it on cause it would be covering a lot.

But if it did come up I'd set out Campus Oil test first. Explain the departure at first limb for Mandatory Injuctions. Cite Lingham etc.
Then I'd go into the QT element. Explain the higher evidential burden. Cite Zsabo and others.

bigtophat13 · 23-09-2018 09:13PM

lawless11 wrote: »

I suppose yes, then it's a short topic - I mean I have no idea how much of an upgrade of standard it can be (in 30min to write), but personally I don't think I'm able to do much more than 2,5-3 pages?
How would you imagine the standard to be? Throw 15 cases out and write 4 pages in half an hour? *I mean, if you can, sure it's excellent aha* I just don't think I can do that

I don't think it can be must more than undergrad, in fact I actually think it's probably a downgrade. Kilcommins who does criminal (and is about the loveliest guy you'll meet) gave us a talk on it last year and said that while undergrad is huge detail on small topics with academics for days, FE1s are far more about quantity and application. So because you're going in learning 8-12 topics you can only have 10-15 per topic and while if she gave you a problem question on specific performance with loads of issues you might be able to write for days, if she asks new model constructive trust or the defences of specific performance you cant really have that much to give.

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

Comments