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

Townton · 01-10-2018 10:40AM

What are cities predictions for the case notes in constitutional? If anyone is in the know.

Pollylou75 · 01-10-2018 10:43AM

Townton wrote: »

What are cities predictions for the case notes in constitutional? If anyone is in the know.

I'm interested to know this also

holliek · 01-10-2018 10:44AM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

For people doing company, this may seem like a silly question, but in relation to book debt do you need to register such a charge? I was wondering because where you try to create a fixed charge over the bank account the book debt is to be contained in, isn't that against S 408 (1) b relating to not being registerable against bank accounts? Any clarification would be helpful. I know floating charges generally need to be registered book if they're over a bank account also?....

This probably is very confused and nonsensical ...

actually seems a good question and I scarily don't know the answer either! Are they fixed or floating charges? I assume they'll have to be registered as all charges now have to be. Otherwise it'd be a hidden charge which isn't allowed since 2014

Smiley283 · 01-10-2018 11:23AM

Robbo wrote: »

You're looking at a stronger test than Campus for a QT injunction as the case law suggests a strong probability that the apprehended mischief will occur. This is beyond the "fair/bona fide question to be tried" threshold.

I'd lean towards the test being more along the lines of "strong case" threshold test from Maha Lingham. This also ties in with the higher evidential standard required to grant a QT injunction.

Any chance you have a sample quia timet answer so I can wrap my head around answering it?

I've literally just learned off the notes from my manual but am clueless as to how to actually apply it a scenario.

holliek · 01-10-2018 11:31AM

Little confused on retention of title clauses.. Just looked the 2015 Q8 (part A) which discusses upon liquidation what would occur to materials if they were sold under an all sums due clause. The manuals only seem to discuss the characteristics about the clause but I can't figure out what happens to the materials or goods in this case or if it was one of the other 3 types of clauses

nailforhammer · 01-10-2018 12:06PM

jewels652 wrote: »

Hi ya

O’Keffe v Hickey sexually assaulted by teacher court applied the close connection test.

That’s all I got. I hope it helps.

Just in relation to O'Keefe. The close connection test whilst discussed heavily in the case this Canadian approach was actually rejected, with Hardiman J saying it wasn't principled and not strict enough given the facts of the case.

jewels652 · 01-10-2018 12:27PM

nailforhammer wrote: »

Just in relation to O'Keefe. The close connection test whilst discussed heavily in the case this Canadian approach was actually rejected, with Hardiman J saying it wasn't principled and not strict enough given the facts of the case.

Hi ya
On my notes it says it was applied. OMG thanks for beinging it to my attention

Natalie_06 · 01-10-2018 12:43PM

Any property solutions please? Have other constitutional, equity, property materials to swap

Supermax1988 · 01-10-2018 12:45PM

nailforhammer wrote: »

Just in relation to O'Keefe. The close connection test whilst discussed heavily in the case this Canadian approach was actually rejected, with Hardiman J saying it wasn't principled and not strict enough given the facts of the case.

My (Lawschool.ie) manual says it was only discussed in obiter whether it would apply as they couldn't establish an employer/employee relationship. The majority actually approved of it. Hardiman was actually in the minority in rejecting the Canadian approach.

iamanengine · 01-10-2018 12:46PM

nailforhammer wrote: »

Just in relation to O'Keefe. The close connection test whilst discussed heavily in the case this Canadian approach was actually rejected, with Hardiman J saying it wasn't principled and not strict enough given the facts of the case.

It was rejected by Hardiman J, however it was accepted by Fennelly J, Murray CJ and Denham J concurring. Also the SC in Hickey v McGowan noted that it was accepted in O' Keefe.

My manual is extremely misleading however as it gives much more weight to Hardiman's approach. But I think that might be because the manual was before Hickey confirmed the close-connection test so that might be why.

Townton · 01-10-2018 01:09PM

Guys, I would say that for the sexual assault cases re Vicarious Liability I was told good to know but don't get hung up on them. A lot of material on them in my manual pointed this out at a preparatory lecture and the lecturer said they weren't essential to being able to answer such a question. Rember in a VL question you bearly have 30 mins all going well to answer it. Not really enough time to get through that sexual assault victim case law plus the other cases relating to the employee-employer relationship before even starting the part of the question that relates to scope and course of employment.

Just my opinion on that. Also acutely aware I could be kicking myself tomorrow given the nature of FE1 exams and the possibility for anything to come up. But this is just my take on it.

iamanengine · 01-10-2018 01:19PM

My memorising of cases for Tort has not gone at all to plan, disaster. Gunna have to take some massive risks and hope I get lucky.

Focusing on:

Vicarious
Occupiers
Products
Nuisance/Rylands
Passing Off
Medical Negligence
Trespass to Person
General Negligence

Gunna be a seriously high chance I won't be able to answer 5!!

sapphire309 · 01-10-2018 01:46PM

Is it possible to learn the entire Contract course from now til Friday?

Pollylou75 · 01-10-2018 01:52PM

Natalie_06 wrote: »

Any property solutions please? Have other constitutional, equity, property materials to swap

Could I have some constitutional solutions I only have the examiners report in property to swap

Fuguestate · 01-10-2018 03:00PM

sapphire309 wrote: »

Is it possible to learn the entire Contract course from now til Friday?

Not the entire syllabus, but you'd be surprised what you can do.

HappySlappy123 · 01-10-2018 03:02PM

iamanengine wrote: »

My memorising of cases for Tort has not gone at all to plan, disaster. Gunna have to take some massive risks and hope I get lucky.

Focusing on:

Vicarious
Occupiers
Products
Nuisance/Rylands
Passing Off
Medical Negligence
Trespass to Person
General Negligence

Gunna be a seriously high chance I won't be able to answer 5!!

I'd be surprised (and in trouble myself) if that didn't cover you

Fuguestate · 01-10-2018 03:06PM

Re duty of care and the Glencar V Mayo four-part test for the imposition of a duty.

Would we have to apply that to a problem question to see if a duty exists, or is that more for an essay question in terms of the development of the duty of care.

I can't recall where I read this, but I have it in my head that the Caparo/Glencar tests are for establishing new and novel categories of relationships. Am I wrong?

Edit: it was in Whelan v AIB. Glencar test should only be applied in new and novel categories of relationship, not relationships that the Courts have already decided can give rise to a duty of care.

So would that mean that there's no need to apply the test to a standard problem question situation involving an accepted category of relationship? Maybe even mention the Glencar case to say there's no need to apply the test, just to show you're knowledge in that area?

Or am I way off the mark here?

bigtophat13 · 01-10-2018 03:57PM

holliek wrote: »

actually seems a good question and I scarily don't know the answer either! Are they fixed or floating charges? I assume they'll have to be registered as all charges now have to be. Otherwise it'd be a hidden charge which isn't allowed since 2014

holliek wrote: »

Little confused on retention of title clauses.. Just looked the 2015 Q8 (part A) which discusses upon liquidation what would occur to materials if they were sold under an all sums due clause. The manuals only seem to discuss the characteristics about the clause but I can't figure out what happens to the materials or goods in this case or if it was one of the other 3 types of clauses

I'm going to avoid it as best I can, will likely only be a real issue if they mention in a problem question that its specifically a charge over a bank account. Reading over Hutchinson the last while and far less tired book debts are registerable as either floating charges or fixed charges because they satisfy the criteria of a mortgage or a charge under George v Illingsworth, it can be a fixed charge over book debt if the book debt is specified to go into a specific bank account you can't withdraw out of without the lenders permission. You don't have a charge over the account, you have a charge over the book debts which happens to be fixed and secure because it's in an account as best as I can tell. Does that make sense? I think it does? So just don't bring the S 408 complications into it if they can be avoided!

I haven't got the manuals so I can only do my best with this, and ROT really isn't my strongest. But if its merely a contractual ROT of unworked products like in Clough Mill v Martin in the first clause or in Kruppstahl where they said the unworked steel was still theres but the worked was gone as they needed to register that charge then you're ok.

All sums due are a much higher bar, a bit like the book debt spoken of above, in Carroll v JF Bourke (maybe?) they seemed to suggest that a simple all sums due clause was not enough and in Unitherm heating they suggested that simply saying they retained beneficial ownership over the sums from the selling was not enough without actually providing a means to protect it - like a specific bank account. Courtney himself thinks that's the death knell for such clauses I read somewhere too.

What does the manual say the three types are?

bigtophat13 · 01-10-2018 04:05PM

For Ultra Vires Courtney mentions in his reports once or twice that SI 163 of 1973 is very relevant and how disappointed he was that students didn't mention it was repealed

Does anyone know exactly what it did? As best I can see it amended and brought in S 8 of the 1963 act? Is that correct ?

bigtophat13 · 01-10-2018 04:13PM

Robbo wrote: »

You're looking at a stronger test than Campus for a QT injunction as the case law suggests a strong probability that the apprehended mischief will occur. This is beyond the "fair/bona fide question to be tried" threshold.

I'd lean towards the test being more along the lines of "strong case" threshold test from Maha Lingham. This also ties in with the higher evidential standard required to grant a QT injunction.

For sure, a couple commentators have said it should theoretically be the same standard but simply down to the fact that it usually hasn't happened yet they say the evidence is harder to establish so in effect (and seen in all the case law) you need to prove the mischief will occur quite probably.

Craobh Rua Lua · 01-10-2018 04:14PM

Hi all, would really appreciate some guidance as I am so nervous about torts. Does this look sufficient:
Ordinary duty of care, standard of care, causation and remoteness with res ipsa,
Defamation
Occupiers’ liability
Nuisance and RvF
Nervous shock and pure economic loss
Passing off
Contributory negligence essay
Concurrent wrongdoers essay
Trespass
Damages
Vicarious liability

twitchandsweep · 01-10-2018 04:15PM

Contract people

Probably silly of me to post about this but just going through the October 2016 sitting and finding it difficult to see how I would have been able to answer 5 questions - In yer opinions was it a difficult sitting? Or am I just really underprepared....

bigtophat13 · 01-10-2018 04:53PM

twitchandsweep wrote: »

Contract people

Probably silly of me to post about this but just going through the October 2016 sitting and finding it difficult to see how I would have been able to answer 5 questions - In yer opinions was it a difficult sitting? Or am I just really underprepared....

Questions 4,5 & 7 weren't the nicest and the problems had a lot put into them so you could have gotten caught if you didn't have minors capacity and frustration, so no it wasn't the nicest but it's not outside the realms of possibility, where were you stuck?

Fuguestate · 01-10-2018 05:06PM

Craobh Rua Lua wrote: »

Hi all, would really appreciate some guidance as I am so nervous about torts. Does this look sufficient:
Ordinary duty of care, standard of care, causation and remoteness with res ipsa,
Defamation
Occupiers’ liability
Nuisance and RvF
Nervous shock and pure economic loss
Passing off
Contributory negligence essay
Concurrent wrongdoers essay
Trespass
Damages
Vicarious liability

I'd be shocked if that wasn't enough.

holliek · 01-10-2018 05:27PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I'm going to avoid it as best I can, will likely only be a real issue if they mention in a problem question that its specifically a charge over a bank account. Reading over Hutchinson the last while and far less tired book debts are registerable as either floating charges or fixed charges because they satisfy the criteria of a mortgage or a charge under George v Illingsworth, it can be a fixed charge over book debt if the book debt is specified to go into a specific bank account you can't withdraw out of without the lenders permission. You don't have a charge over the account, you have a charge over the book debts which happens to be fixed and secure because it's in an account as best as I can tell. Does that make sense? I think it does? So just don't bring the S 408 complications into it if they can be avoided!

I haven't got the manuals so I can only do my best with this, and ROT really isn't my strongest. But if its merely a contractual ROT of unworked products like in Clough Mill v Martin in the first clause or in Kruppstahl where they said the unworked steel was still theres but the worked was gone as they needed to register that charge then you're ok.

All sums due are a much higher bar, a bit like the book debt spoken of above, in Carroll v JF Bourke (maybe?) they seemed to suggest that a simple all sums due clause was not enough and in Unitherm heating they suggested that simply saying they retained beneficial ownership over the sums from the selling was not enough without actually providing a means to protect it - like a specific bank account. Courtney himself thinks that's the death knell for such clauses I read somewhere too.

What does the manual say the three types are?

So I have that there are 4 types of ROTC - simple retention; proceeds of sale; aggregation ROTC and all sums due.

bigtophat13 · 01-10-2018 05:50PM

holliek wrote: »

So I have that there are 4 types of ROTC - simple retention; proceeds of sale; aggregation ROTC and all sums due.

What does the aggregation entail? Jesus there's a lot of blurred lines there for me, I don't fancy ROT that much.

jewels652 · 01-10-2018 05:54PM

On the bus to Dublin for tomorrow’s exam.
Is starting to feel real

My nerves

Townton · 01-10-2018 05:58PM

jewels652 wrote: »

On the bus to Dublin for tomorrow’s exam.
Is starting to feel real
My nerves

I might be alone in this but been knocking these off at a slowish rate, not in a rush 3 2 3 sorts of a job. The most annoying thing I found about FE1s is the lack of nerves, I fond there is no fear complex because at the back of my head I think I can sit them again in a couple of months I know too much stress ect is bad for preparation but a little bit of fear and nerves is always a good motivator I found at least that's how I felt when doing things like the LC and finals were repeat was simply not an option.

holliek · 01-10-2018 06:09PM

bigtophat13 wrote: »

What does the aggregation entail? Jesus there's a lot of blurred lines there for me, I don't fancy ROT that much.

aggregation is that the title remains with the vendor until payment. But it also includes when they are irreversibly mixed. I'm so lost on them aswell. The more I look at them I'm thinking avoid.

bigtophat13 · 01-10-2018 06:10PM

Anyone know where it says you have to publish the winding up petition for a company? I know it has to be on iris oifiguil but what section or instrument says that ?

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

Comments