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

vid36 · 11-03-2019 2:40pm

It shows just how difficult tort can be, you really need 14 + topics to be confident of five good questions. It is very frustrating and probably means that I will have another year in the wilderness.

leavingcert17 · 11-03-2019 2:41pm

What was the purpose of tort question?

Supermax1988 · 11-03-2019 2:43pm

holliek wrote: »

For the question of registration of charges, my answer is literally just a summary of s408 and s409.. Does anyone have any cases or additional info on that topic?

It's very legislation heavy. You might be able to throw in a case or two for Section 417-application for an extension of time. Look at Re Manning Furniture Ltd., Re Telford Motors, and Re Resnoid and Mica Products Ltd.

There's also Frank Bell and Sons Ltd;Shaw's Application but I've read the facts of that case several times in two different manuals and for the life of me I can't understand the reasoning behind the decision.

iamanengine · 11-03-2019 2:46pm

I'm obviously biased but I'm certain that that was one of the hardest tort papers out of the last 20 or so sittings bar maybe March 14.

Just the luck of the draw. It happens.

Almost certainly failed, means I have to pass my other 3 or my work has been for nought

Well, no one ever said it was gunna be easy lol

holliek · 11-03-2019 2:47pm

Supermax1988 wrote: »

It's very legislation heavy. You might be able to throw in a case or two for Section 417-application for an extension of time. Look at Re Manning Furniture Ltd., Re Telford Motors, and Re Resnoid and Mica Products Ltd.

There's also Frank Bell and Sons Ltd;Shaw's Application but I've read the facts of that case several times in two different manuals and for the life of me I can't understand the reasoning behind the decision.

That's great thanks for the help! I'll add in the bit about extension, completely forgot I actually had them in my notes. Don't know Bell and Shaw case but I'll have a look at them. Thanks again!

bigtophat13 · 11-03-2019 2:47pm

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm obviously biased but I'm certain that that was one of the hardest tort papers out of the last 20 or so sittings bar maybe March 14.

Just the luck of the draw. It happens.

Almost certainly failed, means I have to pass my other 3 or my work has been for nought

Well, no one ever said it was gunna be easy lol

I think that's a fair enough assertion, it was quite nasty but that was expected after the lovely one last time I'm afraid

iamanengine · 11-03-2019 2:48pm

leavingcert17 wrote: »

What was the purpose of tort question?

Basically, discuss the fundamental objectives of Tort law illustrating through case law

bigtophat13 · 11-03-2019 2:48pm

Anyone else any thoughts on the nervous shock / Wilkinson v downtown question?

Supermax1988 · 11-03-2019 2:53pm

xBell123 wrote: »

*Company*

Trying to learn everything and feel like it’s getting to be too much!!

I planned to learn:

Incorporation and documentation (s.31 contract, alteration of articles - really short)
SLP
Corporate capacity and ultra vires
Directors (s.158 delegation, types, duties)
Restriction and disqualification
Reckless and fraudulent trading
Share transfer
Shareholder protection (foss v harbottle, s. 212)
Corporate borrowing
Winding up
Distribution of assets

Haven’t had a chance to look at winding up or distribution of assets yet and considering leaving them out - is that wise?

Is the list above too much / not enough? I’m freaking

Solid enough list to my eye if you cover it all. You're probably guaranteed 2 (maybe 3) questions from Directors/Restriction and Disqual/Corporate Borrowing alone.

I'd definitely cover Winding up and Distribution of assets. They're both due a run going by the grid!

ally1234 · 11-03-2019 2:54pm

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. I’m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

Supermax1988 · 11-03-2019 2:55pm

holliek wrote: »

Don't know Bell and Shaw case but I'll have a look at them.

It's the one case! Just a weird title. If you can figure it out feel free to come back and explain it me!

ally1234 · 11-03-2019 2:58pm

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Anyone else any thoughts on the nervous shock / Wilkinson v downtown question?

I went with nervous shock only. I assumed Wilkinson refered to trespass to person but I doubt you would be incorrect mentioning it, I wish I did! My brain was fried in there. I’m glad it’s over and I’m finished. If I pass it’s my last ever fe1 but I’m doubtful of that!!

JCormac · 11-03-2019 2:58pm

Hopefully the rest of the papers aren't as difficult as Tort sounded

Does anyone know where to source the newest Colleges night before notes?

Particularly for Criminal and Property. It seems the links are broken or they just haven't released them to everybody

LawGirl3434 · 11-03-2019 3:01pm

ally1234 wrote: »

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. I’m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

That’s exactly where I am I think

4 that were okay and one that wasn’t

Gunslinger92 · 11-03-2019 3:04pm

ally1234 wrote: »

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. I’m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

1 good question
2 average
2 pulled out of my hole
51% :pac:

bigtophat13 · 11-03-2019 3:04pm

At least I'm not the only one so ! It's doable for sure guys, in the ones I viewed I had passed most in 4 questions with weak final questions then just to add on, don't psych yourselves out!

leavingcert17 · 11-03-2019 3:04pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Basically, discuss the fundamental objectives of Tort law illustrating through case law

Would that have been duty of care? Neighbour principle?

Supreme!Fox · 11-03-2019 3:06pm

Are special contracts and shareholder agreements the same thing, and if not, what is the difference?

lawless11 · 11-03-2019 3:13pm

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

1 good question
2 average
2 pulled out of my hole
51% :pac:

Feel this was me today, so hopefully an on the dot pass lol

sapphire309 · 11-03-2019 3:15pm

Can anybody get their head around the avoidance of post commencement dispositions? My notes are a complete mess! Is the position in Ireland basically just the reverse of Hollicourt v BOI in that banks can be made liable for post-commencement dispositions?

What effect does s.602(3) have on all this? Apparently it has reversed the decision in Re Industrial Services Ltd....?

I'm in a blind panic at this stage, still have mountains to learn and I don't seem to be able to grasp the basics

bigtophat13 · 11-03-2019 3:16pm

lawless11 wrote: »

Feel this was me today, so hopefully an on the dot pass lol

For me it's all riding on whether that nervous shock was nervous shock, it was either no good or excellent

defamation was nice and a wide amount to talk about and shoe off, med neg not bad, causation complex but allowed you talk about a lot and damages was, eh

Lovestolisten · 11-03-2019 3:19pm

Q3 I really felt it referred to Psychological Damage.
Eoin Quill has a short section in 2nd edition of Torts in Ireland under Miscellaneous Torts.
My book is old so maybe more cases since this edition.
I looked at it under Intentional Torts.
I don’t know if Nervous Shock would satisfy, proximity requirement would fail.. Ex relationship .. If Brothers failed in Alcock an ex girl friend would be way too remote.

ally1234 · 11-03-2019 3:19pm

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

1 good question
2 average
2 pulled out of my hole
51% :pac:

Thank you, I’m hoping he will be kind with the stuff I threw on the paper this monrnig. I’d love a pass regardless of where I go from here career wise I just want these exams finished with! Best of luck to everyone sitting more this week and next, if I can get to 7 anyone can do it!

bigtophat13 · 11-03-2019 3:21pm

Lovestolisten wrote: »

Q3 I really felt it referred to Psychological Damage.
Eoin Quill has a short section in 2nd edition of Torts in Ireland under Miscellaneous Torts.
My book is old so maybe more cases since this edition.
I looked at it under Intentional Torts.
I don’t know if Nervous Shock would satisfy, proximity requirement would fail.. Ex relationship .. If Brothers failed in Alcock an ex girl friend would be way too remote.

I guess I just saw psychological damage and jumped on it. Surely Wilkinson v downtown is gonna be such a short answer though!?

He was nasty and changed the exam again in not referring to the exact question.

Vegetarian2017 · 11-03-2019 3:23pm

bigtophat13 wrote:

Anyone else any thoughts on the nervous shock / Wilkinson v downtown question?

I thought it was wilkinson I didn't attempt. Anyhow re tort I cannot complain because I went in trying to wing it just ran out of time but honestly for those of you that did prep or spend a lot longer good god, it was very odd selections and so specific. Was the first question causation / contributory neg??

Vegetarian2017 · 11-03-2019 3:25pm

ally1234 wrote:

Wow!!! That was tough, omg! The only nice bit was defamation question. Iâ€™m in bits after that rotten paper. Anyone have any positive stories of a person doing 4 average questions, a rubbish 5th and passing tort/torture??

Listen id say alot of people found it difficult the fact you got five questions answered /attempted for a tough paper you'll have a good chance.

Vegetarian2017 · 11-03-2019 3:31pm

Even though tort was a half attempt for me as i am doing five feel totally knocked for tomo paper like of it a curveball like that ugh:/
Is company examiner tough?

iamanengine · 11-03-2019 3:36pm

leavingcert17 wrote: »

Would that have been duty of care? Neighbour principle?

I'm not 100% sure but I think it's more along the lines of the function of Tort, usually the 1st chapter in the manuals, compensation/vindication/deterrence etc

Very rare, only came up once before in the last 20 or so sittings.

LawGirl3434 · 11-03-2019 3:39pm

iamanengine wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure but I think it's more along the lines of the function of Tort, usually the 1st chapter in the manuals, compensation/vindication/deterrence etc

Very rare, only came up once before in the last 20 or so sittings.

Ray Ray let us down today

it wasn’t poor Mary and her mannequin inflicting emotional distress

Doser · 11-03-2019 3:39pm

xBell123 wrote: »

*Company*

Trying to learn everything and feel like it’s getting to be too much!!

I planned to learn:

Incorporation and documentation (s.31 contract, alteration of articles - really short)
SLP
Corporate capacity and ultra vires
Directors (s.158 delegation, types, duties)
Restriction and disqualification
Reckless and fraudulent trading
Share transfer
Shareholder protection (foss v harbottle, s. 212)
Corporate borrowing
Winding up
Distribution of assets

Haven’t had a chance to look at winding up or distribution of assets yet and considering leaving them out - is that wise?

Is the list above too much / not enough? I’m freaking

In the exact same boat, seeing winding-up at the end of my list makes me think I dont have time! I'm running with you on the rest of it.
1. Directors (hoping 1 or 2 questions come up from the amount there is on it),
2. Shareholder protection (Foss Harbottle, s212),
3. SLP,
4. Restriction/Disqualification,
5. Reckless & Fraudulent,
6. corporate capacity and ultra vires,
7. Examinership,
Share Transfer
Receivership
Winding up.

I've tried to list the order I'm most comfortable for the others. Anything after is a cluster of straws to clutch at. I could be hoping for way too kind of an exam.

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

Comments