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

supercreative wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea what the impact of planning permission is on a nuisance (Lanigan v Barry, Coventry v Lawrence)? The section in the manual I have is v confusing and I'm not sure what it means.

Planning permission doesn't make a nuisance acceptable, but it may gradually change the character of the locality of the area in which it occurs

user115 wrote: »

You are allowed highlight the legislation ya?

Yes!

https://citycolleges.ie/fe1-night-before-notes-october-2019/

Link for city colleges night before notes October 2019

What's wrong with tort night before? It's set of slides on how answer exam q and not summary, hopefully proper summary will be up soon!It is very handy though on, that grid on page 5 is a bit off putting I hadn't realized some topics had that much frequency, things like damages are a bit further down list than you would think

Is consequential and relational economic loss the same thing?

iamanengine wrote: »

Is consequential and relational economic loss the same thing?

I think relational loss is loss relating to the damage of property! I haven't come across consequential loss in Tort law but I think it might be something to do with goodwill?

Bassadd wrote: »

I have a simple question - the pack I got said that your exam number needs to be noted on legislation materials brought into the exam but the accompanying letter doesn't clearly indicate which number is the exam number. Is it my ID number or my candidate number that I have to put on it?

Candidate number - the shorter number -should go on your legislation

For nervous shock, I just have a few points about what it is and then go through caselaw of McLoughlin, Alcock, Mullaly, Kelly v Hennessey, Fletcher v CPW and Devlin v NMH. Is there more I should have for this topic?

iamanengine wrote: »

Is consequential and relational economic loss the same thing?

consequential economic loss is where for example the plaintiff is in an RTA suffers damage to the van and can recover for this and then also can recover for loss in hiring a replacement vehicle (consequential economic loss).

Relational economic loss is a distinct category of pure economic loss which covers situations of pure economic loss where the Plaintiff suffers because of a third party- english case of Leigh & Sillivan ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Ltd - applied in Ireland in Irish Paper sacks ltd v John Sisk & Son

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

But for a person to be liable, they need to have breached their duty not to take reasonable care of visitors, or not to act with reckless disregard re trespassers and recreational users?

Correct

iamanengine wrote: »

I don’t think there was a dissent here. In Wildgust C found there was a relationship of proximity even though there was no direct interaction between P and D as it was reasonable that P would rely on the statements given by D to Ps bank.

In Walsh there was no relationship of proximity between the buyer and the agent, the agent acted on behalf of the seller and the relationship of proximity lay there, it had no duty to the buyer. Further, they were also not liable because the brochure contained a disclaimer.

The two cases sit well with each other I think

Thanks so much you've cleared it up. So many cases in negligent misstatement and I find the facts can be so complex so thanks for clearing those up

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Company

Just to query with people - all sums due ROT clauses, NBN are saying no Irish endorsement and that Courtney has commented on such - I have an Irish case confirming one - does anyone else or is my manual incorrect?

Oh that's completely different to my notes
I have Re Stokes & McKiernan (1978) as an Irish case endorsing All Sums Due Clauses, noting they are not charges and do not need to be registered.
And similar approach in UK in Armour v. Thyssen (1990) (which he mentions in the Examiner's Reports)

Can anyone else shed any light?

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

That's what I have too! And I checked and found confirmation of such in an LRC Report from 1989, so I think its NBN that are wrong

Perfect! Thank you! I'll go with it so

20082014 wrote: »

COMPANY

In relation to SLP, would it be correct in saying that since the Prest decision, the courts will only lift the veil in relation to concealment cases (courts respecting SLP) and will pierce the veil in evasion cases (courts disregarding SLP)?

But then go on to state that Lord Nurberger has said that piecing the corporate veil has never been successful in English law, that lifting the veil is seen a lot more throughout cases.

I wouldn’t say that they won’t lift if for evasion - just that it’s logically much less likely to happen as you’d rarely get a time the officer seeking to hide behind the SLP has independent legal obligation to make evasion both necessity and possible

Could be wrong but just my understanding

20082014 wrote: »

So would you just reference 'lifting' the veil and leave it at that, without getting into it further? I am looking over the notes I have and getting very confused over it! In my notes I have lifting is for concealment and piercing is for evasion but theres no real mention of this in the NBN so getting worried!

I wouldn't worry too much here - important to think of how a likely SLP question will be asked. Prest comes in as how the veil is pierced, but his questions typically tend to focus on agency and SEE, so it's much more important to have a thorough understanding of the case law in those regards.

For Prest, I personally think it would be satisfactory to note that the court identified the two ways to disregard the SLP (evasion and concealment) and to note that concealment is more likely and thus the terms 'piercing' is perhaps inaccurate.

That's just my opinion and I'm sure others may disagree! Important to consider the time element at this stage too though - in a 35 minute question where you're trying to give all the other cases, I wouldn't get into it much more than that.