Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…314315317319320…334

Comments

  • Options
    #9482
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    holliek wrote: »
    Is anyone able to explain right of redemption to me in plain language? and also what are the important cases?

    TIA

    It's the right of the mortgagor (borrower) to take back ownership of the property once the mortgage is paid.

    The only case I have is Knightsbridge Estates Trusts Ltd v Byrne - Generally terms which postpone the equity of redemption (the date of the final payment when the borrower can be done with the mortgage) will usually be void but this was a commercial arrangement and it was upheld.


  • Options
    #9483
    ahhhhhFE1s
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭ahhhhhFE1s


    20082014 wrote: »
    COMPANY - SLP

    Is it correct in saying that no agency was found in Fyffes but SEE was and Denham J reaffirmed that SEE could still be an exception if found in the exceptional circumstances - like what was said in Allied Irish Coal Suppliers?

    Also, does anyone have the facts of Fyffes very briefly and simply that they could send in? I have in my notes to make sure to know the facts of this case but from my revision it just appears that you need to know what cases were discussed in Fyffes, not sure if the actual facts are as important?

    Facts are a bit complicated if I remember but believe you are right about finding SEE and not agency- my condensed notes just say-
     Fyffes v DCC, Laffoy J. stated that a group of companies can be a single economic entity if to not treat them as such result in them evading their obligations under Part 5 of CA 1990 (Insider Trading Laws).


  • Options
    #9484
    Dancing Obsession
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭Dancing Obsession


    Property
    Can anyone share how wills should be interpreted if there is an ambiguity on the face of a will, particularly four corners principle. If anybody has the full answer re four corners principle, the armchair principle and the ideas of latent and patent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence.
    I would really appreciate it.


  • Options
    #9485
    iang198
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭iang198


    PROPERTY

    Does anyone have any authority for the fact that a witness to a will has to be over 18?

    Thanks!


  • Options
    #9486
    rightytighty
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭rightytighty


    iang198 wrote: »
    PROPERTY

    Does anyone have any authority for the fact that a witness to a will has to be over 18?

    Thanks!

    They don’t have to be over 18. They can be of any age as there are no formal requirements in that respect but they must be competent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9487
    20082014
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭20082014


    COMPANY

    What I have covered for company:

    Corporate Capacity and Authority
    SLP
    Share Transfer
    Directors
    Protection for Minorities
    Winding Up
    Restriction and disqualification
    Corporate borrowing
    Receivership
    Examinership
    Realisation of corporate assets

    Anyone think anything not mentioned above will be very likely to come up?


  • Options
    #9488
    Proctop_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭Proctop_


    Constitutional:
    Would anybody know the answer to q5 on the March 2019 paper?
    Relating to the retention of Paula’s blood sample and the disclosure of information from the Gards?

    It would be very much appreciated 🀯🀞
    Thanks


  • Options
    #9489
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    GF612 wrote: »
    I completely agree with this! While the papers are tough he does appear to be a fairly nice marker.

    I passed Tort in the last sitting and was really sure that I had failed. I completely misinterpreted one question but he must've still given me marks for my application of the law despite it being tangental to the question asked.
    It actually ended up being one of my best results so far despite the fact that it's the one I was definitely most worried about afterwards.

    Same, last sitting thought I failed which was a bad start. I missed/confused issues in two problem questions, scribbled some things down for one essay questions and it was a 55. Thought 50 would have been kind.


  • Options
    #9490
    niamh1612
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭niamh1612


    rightytighty wrote: »
    They don’t have to be over 18. They can be of any age as there are no formal requirements in that respect but they must be competent.
    Do they not have to be over 18 or married as per S77 of SA 1965?


  • Options
    #9491
    yournerd
    Registered Users Posts: 4,159 ✭✭✭yournerd


    niamh1612 wrote: »
    Do they not have to be over 18 or married as per S77 of SA 1965?

    That’s to make a will


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9492
    GF612
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭GF612


    20082014 wrote: »
    COMPANY

    What I have covered for company:

    Corporate Capacity and Authority
    SLP
    Share Transfer
    Directors
    Protection for Minorities
    Winding Up
    Restriction and disqualification
    Corporate borrowing
    Receivership
    Examinership
    Realisation of corporate assets

    Anyone think anything not mentioned above will be very likely to come up?

    Minus Examinership that's what I'm covering so hopefully that's enough! Am still working on getting Receivership, Winding Up and Realisation of Corporate Assets straight in my head though. :eek:


  • Options
    #9493
    20082014
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭20082014


    GF612 wrote: »
    Minus Examinership that's what I'm covering so hopefully that's enough! Am still working on getting Receivership, Winding Up and Realisation of Corporate Assets straight in my head though. :eek:
    I am not confident in any topic except SLP, I feel like I have skimmed briefly over everything so really hoping the questions are broad! Also hope he is a nice marker!


  • Options
    #9494
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    Anyone have a short explanation for the System of Priority in Unregistered Land?

    1707 Rules and Equitable Priorities, my notes are a bit of a mess for this.


  • Options
    #9495
    GF612
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭GF612


    20082014 wrote: »
    I am not confident in any topic except SLP, I feel like I have skimmed briefly over everything so really hoping the questions are broad! Also hope he is a nice marker!

    Oh man, I'm praying he's a nice marker!!

    Best of Luck!


  • Options
    #9496
    Supermax1988
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭Supermax1988


    iamanengine wrote: »
    Anyone have a short explanation for the System of Priority in Unregistered Land?

    1707 Rules and Equitable Priorities, my notes are a bit of a mess for this.

    Don't know whether the below will help or confuse you more but I tried my best! 😂

    To determine whether equitable or statutory principles apply ask 2 questions:
    1. Are the interests capable of being registered under the 1707 Act? If yes, go to no.2. If no, equitable principles apply.
    2. Are any of the interests already registered? If yes, statutory principles apply. If no, equitable principles apply.

    Equitable Principles
    "First in time prevails"
    Earlier Legal title v later Legal title
    First in time
    Earlier Equitable title v later Equitable title
    First in time
    Legal title v Equitable title
    First in time
    Equitable title v Legal title
    First in time except if the later legal is obtained by a BFPFVWN

    Statutory Rules
    Not concerned with what was created first of whether its legal or equitable, first internet registered gets priority.

    Registered Interest V Registred Interst
    First in time

    Registered v Registerable but Unregistered
    Registered interest will prevail

    Registerable but Unregistered v Registered
    The Registered title will take priority despite earlier Unregistered interest unless:
    (i) it's shown that holder of the registered interest knew of the earlier interest and sought to take advantage of the statutory rules
    (ii) if holder or later registered interest gave no consideration for the interest when obtained


  • Options
    #9497
    JohnsKite
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭JohnsKite


    Could someone explain legitimate expectation (webb) v/ briefly to me?


  • Options
    #9498
    JCormac
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭JCormac


    20082014 wrote: »
    COMPANY

    What I have covered for company:

    Corporate Capacity and Authority
    SLP
    Share Transfer
    Directors
    Protection for Minorities
    Winding Up
    Restriction and disqualification
    Corporate borrowing
    Receivership
    Examinership
    Realisation of corporate assets

    Anyone think anything not mentioned above will be very likely to come up?

    Hope not!

    I'm the same minus Examinership & SLP.

    I know in my gut that a question on SLP is coming up tomorrow; kicking myself for avoiding it.

    Hopefully there's a problem Q on Receivership! :pac:


  • Options
    #9499
    jus_me
    Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭jus_me


    Probably a silly question but it’s there anything actually in the companies act on SLP?


  • Options
    #9500
    Aoibhin511
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Aoibhin511


    jus_me wrote: »
    Probably a silly question but it’s there anything actually in the companies act on SLP?

    the only legislation i have down for slp if the fact that s609 and s610 are legislative grounds for lifting the veil.


  • Options
    #9501
    user115
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭user115


    You can leave your CA in at 9 in the morning ya? How far into the exam do you get it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9502
    Breacnua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭Breacnua


    Yes


  • Options
    #9503
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    user115 wrote: »
    You can leave your CA in at 9 in the morning ya? How far into the exam do you get it?

    No more than 30 mins usually


  • Options
    #9504
    Daly29
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Daly29


    Would it be too much to ask for the Constitutional Examiner to do a few lines on each Q in the Reports? Some of the issues can be a bit tricky. Seems if others do it he could jot down remarks too for each Q.


  • Options
    #9505
    Breacnua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭Breacnua


    Property:

    Do we need to know Donatia Mortis Causa - a death bed gift - property given in contemplation of the donors death and takes precedence over a will?

    I dont think I have seen it on papers but ... ? Any ideas welcome!


  • Options
    #9506
    Freckley201
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Freckley201


    Breacnua wrote: »
    Property:

    Do we need to know Donatia Mortis Causa - a death bed gift - property given in contemplation of the donors death and takes precedence over a will?

    I dont think I have seen it on papers but ... ? Any ideas welcome!

    It has come up in Equity if I recall correctly, but I didn't cover it for Property.


  • Options
    #9507
    Freckley201
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Freckley201


    City colleges night before notes have almost a full page on Liberty (i.e. detention, bail, immigration etc) separate to trial in due course, but my grid only shows liberty coming up once before so I haven't looked at it, has it been tipped? Anyone else covering it?


  • Options
    #9508
    Proctop_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭Proctop_


    Daly29 wrote: »
    Would it be too much to ask for the Constitutional Examiner to do a few lines on each Q in the Reports? Some of the issues can be a bit tricky. Seems if others do it he could jot down remarks too for each Q.

    What has he said about q5 on last sitting? Or would you have an idea of where I could find the answer regarding the retention of a blood sample and information given from the gards?


  • Options
    #9509
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    Does anyone know if there is usually 2 Succession Q's or is that rarely?


  • Options
    #9510
    sbbyrne
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭sbbyrne


    Guys, this is probably a really obvious q, but if a question re easements comes up would it be necessary to get into the details about the history of prescription and what the old law held etc?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9511
    holliek
    Registered Users Posts: 287 ✭✭holliek


    sbbyrne wrote: »
    Guys, this is probably a really obvious q, but if a question re easements comes up would it be necessary to get into the details about the history of prescription and what the old law held etc?

    Easements can come up in multiple ways so it really depends how it is asked. If i recall correctly, the most common ways asked are characteristics (Re ellensborough park) and the different types e.g. support, way and light.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement