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

kasey0123 · 11-03-2019 06:52PM

Can anyone shed some light of the top 7 topics in Company.. only have a few more hours to cover stuff

sapphire309 · 11-03-2019 06:54PM

kasey0123 wrote: »

Crystallization by express notice is still a legitimate means of crystallization.. but the 2017 act brought in changes because of what happened in JD Brian, so they can still crystallize be notice but it will have no effect on priority in relation to pref creditors? I think..

I have 5 ways of crystallization: receivership, commencement of winding up, express crystallization by service of notice, automatic crystallization and cessation of business

What is the difference between express crystallisation by notice and automatic crystallisation?

holliek · 11-03-2019 06:54PM

Am I right in thinking in JD the bank were allowed to claim in priority of the Revenue (pref creditors). Because of this loophole, the 2017 act was introduced to prevent it from re-occurring?

Also, if this is the case why don't they want the bank to be able to have priority over the pref creditors? Like why is it so bad?

iamanengine · 11-03-2019 07:11PM

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

kasey0123 · 11-03-2019 07:12PM

holliek wrote: »

Am I right in thinking in JD the bank were allowed to claim in priority of the Revenue (pref creditors). Because of this loophole, the 2017 act was introduced to prevent it from re-occurring?

Also, if this is the case why don't they want the bank to be able to have priority over the pref creditors? Like why is it so bad?

Yep! I have no idea why haha... think it’s just because preferential creditors like the revenue and employees wages and outstanding claims and stuff is viewed as more important than feeding the corporate machines

kasey0123 · 11-03-2019 07:13PM

sapphire309 wrote: »

What is the difference between express crystallisation by notice and automatic crystallisation?

Had this Question myself.. no idea but Courtney and thuiller both refer to them separately for some reason.. don’t really get it!

decco201 · 11-03-2019 07:13PM

If anyone has the tort paper from today would they mind taking pic and sending to me, I’ve lost mine and want to show my friend please

JCormac · 11-03-2019 07:17PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

I'd definitely consider covering Complicity in Offences if you haven't already.

Other than that you're solid :pac:

nimcdona · 11-03-2019 07:21PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

concerned I don't know what AR/MR is ...

iamanengine · 11-03-2019 07:21PM

nimcdona wrote: »

concerned I don't know what AR/MR is ...

Actus Reus/Mens Rea :P

nimcdona · 11-03-2019 07:32PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Actus Reus/Mens Rea :P

Hahaha my bad, can safely say I have them covered anyway

sapphire309 · 11-03-2019 07:43PM

Does anybody else ever worry that you've drank so much coffee and red bull during this period that you'll just have a heart attack

SwD · 11-03-2019 07:46PM

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.

Cuddy v Mays - the plaintiffs brother was deemed to satisfy the 'close relationship' test, furthering the Irish more relaxed approach in contrast to Alcock as per Kelly.

I took a dual perspective. I contended that her act was one which negligently inflicted psychiatric damage but there may also lie an action in trespass to the person for intentionally inflicting emotional distress as per Wilkinson. Looking forward to the examiners report.

xBell123 · 11-03-2019 08:00PM

kasey0123 wrote: »

Had this Question myself.. no idea but Courtney and thuiller both refer to them separately for some reason.. don’t really get it!

I think express is where the debenture expressly says you can convert / notify to crystallise, but automatic is where crystallisation happens automatically upon a certain event without any action taken by the debenture holder. My manual says automatic crystallisation exists in Irish debentures but hasn’t yet been tested in the courts.

Vegetarian2017 · 11-03-2019 08:06PM

sapphire309 wrote:

Does anybody else ever worry that you've drank so much coffee and red bull during this period that you'll just have a heart attack

Trying to avoid it cannot sleep at all drank both last night and this morning. Tried to have 3 power naps after no sleep not happening. Affecting study so bad. My brain is mush from tiredness. Seriously reconsidering tomorrows exam.

Vegetarian2017 · 11-03-2019 08:08PM

Does anyone know what came up on the last company exam slp / ultra??

Gunslinger92 · 11-03-2019 08:16PM

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Does anyone know what came up on the last company exam slp / ultra??

Neither came up last sitting!
I don't have the paper but I took it down when someone posted after the exam last sitting:

- duty of company to act in interests of company (?)
- duties of receiver
- ostensible authority; turquands case
- liability of directors for reckless and fraudulent trading and failure to keep proper books
- restriction orders
- distributions
- foss v harbottle
- retention of title clauses; charges over book debts

Hope that helps

clearsky99 · 11-03-2019 08:18PM

Can someone tell me what came up in March for constitutional? And if ye have any of the predictions! Finding it hard to narrow down

lawless11 · 11-03-2019 08:21PM

Criminal - is there a defence of reasonable care for strict liability offences? Keane J commented in Shannon Regional Fisheries that is should be available, but so... is it or is it not? xD

jewels652 · 11-03-2019 08:27PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

I am covering the same as you except for the courts. There are so o many Acts and sections to remember for criminal, feeling frustrated

LawGirl3434 · 11-03-2019 08:38PM

SwD wrote: »

Cuddy v Mays - the plaintiffs brother was deemed to satisfy the 'close relationship' test, furthering the Irish more relaxed approach in contrast to Alcock as per Kelly.

I took a dual perspective. I contended that her act was one which negligently inflicted psychiatric damage but there may also lie an action in trespass to the person for intentionally inflicting emotional distress as per Wilkinson. Looking forward to the examiners report.

This is exactly what I did

Vegetarian2017 · 11-03-2019 08:40PM

@gunslinger
Thanks a mill. I was going to leave ultra out mmm not sure. Need to chop either way. I have a feeling it is going to be a brutal paper ;/

Also duty of company to act in interest of company?

sapphire309 · 11-03-2019 08:44PM

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Neither came up last sitting!
I don't have the paper but I took it down when someone posted after the exam last sitting:

- duty of company to act in interests of company (?)
- duties of receiver
- ostensible authority; turquands case
- liability of directors for reckless and fraudulent trading and failure to keep proper books
- restriction orders
- distributions
- foss v harbottle
- retention of title clauses; charges over book debts

Hope that helps

I'm very much hoping tomorrows paper is nothing like this… Leaving out receivers, corporate authority, reckless/fraudulent trading, distributions… Also leaving out ultra vires and changes to the act, and my knowledge of charges is questionable

Vegetarian2017 · 11-03-2019 08:47PM

Gunslinger92 wrote:

Neither came up last sitting! I don't have the paper but I took it down when someone posted after the exam last sitting:

Gunslinger92 wrote:

- duty of company to act in interests of company (?) - duties of receiver - ostensible authority; turquands case - liability of directors for reckless and fraudulent trading and failure to keep proper books - restriction orders - distributions - foss v harbottle - retention of title clauses; charges over book debts

Gunslinger92 wrote:

Hope that helps

Does he tend to have a pattern to not repeat or should we still study for example ostensible? I haven't really looked at grids

Gunslinger92 · 11-03-2019 08:47PM

sapphire309 wrote: »

I'm very much hoping tomorrows paper is nothing like this… Leaving out receivers, corporate authority, reckless/fraudulent trading, distributions… Also leaving out ultra vires and changes to the act, and my knowledge of charges is questionable

Me too, a couple of nasty ones on there. But Reckless and fraudulent trading is easy and very short!

z6vm1dobfnca3x · 11-03-2019 08:54PM

Did anyone find it difficult to get parking at the Red Cow today or are there generally lots of spaces?

nimcdona · 11-03-2019 09:06PM

jewels652 wrote: »

I am covering the same as you except for the courts. There are so o many Acts and sections to remember for criminal, feeling frustrated

me too:(

sbbyrne · 11-03-2019 09:08PM

HELPPP
Can someone please explain the "Causal link" to me in Constitutional - Unconstitutionally obtained evidence? I feel i must have missed this entirely and now i'm freaking out. SOS

nimcdona · 11-03-2019 09:13PM

lawless11 wrote: »

Criminal - is there a defence of reasonable care for strict liability offences? Keane J commented in Shannon Regional Fisheries that is should be available, but so... is it or is it not? xD

Was looking at that today, my manual says its well settled that its not a defence. But then obviously in maguire v Shannon Regional Fisheries its taken into account and accused gets a more lenient fine, same thing in M'adam v Dublin United tramways Company so my conclusion is that its taken into account in deciding the penalty but it wouldn't ever be an absolute defence for the charge.

Keane J in Shannon Regional is just suggesting it should be an absolute defence I reckon but as of yet it isn't

user115 · 11-03-2019 09:22PM

Hey Legal23 definitely sit criminal, sounds like you have the major work done and just a bit overwhelmed with the amount you need to actually keep in your head. I did the exams twice before i got the first 3 and I got criminal both times. He is a very fair marker. I think focus on the substantive offences MS, murder, NFOAP, know all sexual offences very well and know a bit about all the defenses you will pass. Both times I did a question on property offences and literally named the theft and fraud act 2001 and was given marks for it. You'll be grand, it's very hard but try not to let the stress get to you, yes it is an unreal amount of information to hold in your head esp cause your doing other exams but it is amazing what you remember in the exam. When you are responding to questions set out how you understand the law, the issue, then apply that to the question and it will show you know your stuff. Try your best to get a good sleep, makes all the difference when you are trying to understand and learn things off. Really hoping they all go very well for you

Legal23 wrote: »

I'm going for the magic three for the 3rd time and I'm losing heart. I've signed up for 4 this time round with criminal being my additional subject. I've got condensed notes done but I find I'm rewriting all my notes again in the learning process. Tbh, I've mostly focused on my past exams so I've left criminal to the end. I'm starting to panic looking at the topics today and feel like I'm getting nowhere. I'm just wondering from your experience would I be better off not sitting criminal and just focus on getting my three, spending the next few days being fully prepared for my 3 exams or do I spend the next day and a half cramming to get criminal into my head... Is it possible to pass if I feel like nothing is going in at this point???

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

Comments