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

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Hey,

So based on trends and frequency of topics being examined, I am covering the following for Equity:

Injunctions (particularly quia timet, interlocutory, AP)
Charitable Trusts
Non-Charitable
Cy-press
Rectification
Undue Influence / Recission
Satisfaction
Trusteeship
DMC
Three Certainties
Strong v Bird
Quistclose Trusts

I know the paper is unpredictable etc but I struggle with equity so the above is already a lot for me to get my head around.

Any thoughts? Am I missing anything major, or anything worth leaving out?

Leraf wrote: »

Do Specific Performance also. Usually comes up with Rectification.

Specific Performance is very much due (despite the unpredictability). Estoppel has been up 2 in a row and I think SP might be 3 sittings gone at this stage?

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Hey,

So based on trends and frequency of topics being examined, I am covering the following for Equity:

Injunctions (particularly quia timet, interlocutory, AP)
Charitable Trusts
Non-Charitable
Cy-press
Rectification
Undue Influence / Recission
Satisfaction
Trusteeship
DMC
Three Certainties
Strong v Bird
Quistclose Trusts

I know the paper is unpredictable etc but I struggle with equity so the above is already a lot for me to get my head around.

Any thoughts? Am I missing anything major, or anything worth leaving out?

Constructive trusts could be a good one to do if you get a chance, apparently its due and has been always the same 2 essay questions when it appears

Hi All,

I'm new to the forum, only joined today. I am sitting exams in October (left to late for March sitting) can anyone provide suggestions for best way to study. Hoping to sit Contract, Equity, Property and Criminal.
Thanks

Kallyann1 wrote: »

Hi!

Does anyone have any sample tort answers? I am finding that the reports are very minimal!

Hey I do - PM me your email

jewels652 wrote: »

Criminal Law

In the October 2018 report the examiner says that the question is based on the facts of a recent case DPP v Solowiow 2018 I have been looking for this case online and no luck.

Would somebody that may know this case please give me a summary of it.


Thanks

My 2-second googling gave me this. https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/dpp-v-solowiow-trial-judge-must-assess-defendants-lies-in-time-nature-and-circumstances-of-offence-when-directing-jury/

Is anyone else just absolutely wrecked? This is hopefully my last two but I just seem to have lost the will to study 😭

Gomzu wrote: »

Is anyone else just absolutely wrecked? This is hopefully my last two but I just seem to have lost the will to study ��

Wrecked with no will to study either. It honestly feels like i am learning nothing. I am so sick of FE1s. Cant wait until they're over.

Does anyone have any grids/answers for Constitutional or Contract? I have stuff for Criminal, Equity, Property and EU if you wanna PM me.

You can highlight and underline (no problem with using different colours) and use tabs, but no writing.

It's usually sign posted in the Red Cow where they are to be handed in before 1pm the day before. If you hand in your legislation on the morning of the exam, they will usually bring it to your desk in the first half hour, if not already there before the exam starts.

nimcdona wrote: »

does anyone know whats the story with bringing the acts in? Where to hand them in the day before?

And also are you able to highlight and tab them and just not write on them?
Or do they have to be completely untouched?

Worried about having things highlighted and being told I can't bring it in then

Does anyone have an up to date grid for Criminal? I can trade for lots of other stuff!

Supreme!Fox wrote: »

Could somebody explain the criminal law defence of intoxication to me? Specifically what mens rea is required for voluntary and involuntary intoxication. (specific and basic intent)

Also, would it be fine to ignore the Procedure, Detention and Bail chapter if covering everything else, or do people normally tie that chapter in when advising clients at the end of each problem q?

I think the best way to break it down is to look at voluntary intoxication in the most detail. If you become intoxicated by your own will, the courts have been inclined to say that you cannot form the intent for specific intent offences, murder being the obvious one, off the top of my head I suppose making or causing a loss by deception would be an outfield one too and a couple more dishonesty based ones. The exception is where you intentionally get yourself drunk for dutch courage as per AG for NI v Gallagher.

Basic intent you can be held liable for because one need only be reckless for basic intent offences. Manslaughter is usually from an unlawful act which is dangerous (gross negligence too of course). So assault causing harm would be strict liability for example and serious harm has the possibility to be caused recklessly. If you do one of those while drunk and they end up dead you can and likely will be held liable for the manslaughter. In R v Caldwell this came up where they held he could be convicted for the reckless arson but not for the intention to harm arson as that required specific intent so that's a good case to differentiate. Australia have done away with the distinction as being arbitrary but as per DPP v John Reilly though the court expressed reservations we still follow distinction like the English.

Regarding Innocent intoxication that'll only happen if you're spiked or you take a drug following the doctors orders without awareness it would cause the reaction it did. In DPP v Majewski the guy took 200 pills and assaulted a few people so he was liable whereas in R v Hardie he took valium to calm himself down and had an adverse reaction and became aggressive so it was held that he couldn't expect that.

Essentially the policy reason behind it all is you can't become intoxicated and act with wanton disregard of law and that was pretty much the logic stated in AG v Manning regarding men "giving in to their passions" or something like that.

Regarding that chapter:
It's a nasty boring area and I don't want to answer on it. There's often a question disguised as a problem but its essentially an essay where the client says tell me everything about detention, arrest and my right to silence. But on top of that there might be a question where at the end of the offences committed he throws in that he's out on bail at the time. Another year there was 2 questions that brought it in and another on the courts specifically so I'd recommend having a barebones knowledge on it. I'm tryna have 3/4 cases for each area, an idea of bail and then be able to talk about the Special Criminal court with 5 or 6 cases just in case.

Anybody still working full time and still have about half your notes left to make? Misery loves company

People doing courts for criminal, how many cases do you have roughly?

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

People doing courts for criminal, how many cases do you have roughly?

10 on the dot, mainly SCC