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

rightytighty · 06-02-2020 11:39AM

sm333 wrote: »

I never received an email like this but only got two in my first sitting, one of which I'm supposed to be resitting in March. Anyone know more about this carrying forward thing??

Check your emails, mine came 30th Jan.

“Dear Candidate,

You may be aware that following the coming into operation on 1 January 2020 of The Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2011 (Apprenticeship and Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I. No 503 of 2019), a candidate sitting the FE-1 post-January 2020 will be deemed to have passed each examination they actually pass. The previous applicable Regulations required a candidate initially to pass at least three of the eight FE-1 examinations in order to be able to carry forward those passes to a subsequent FE-1 sitting. Any FE-1 examination passed short of that minimum of three would not have been permitted to carry forward any passes actually obtained.

If you fall into this category and if you intend to sit the next FE-1 sitting (March 2020) or any subsequent FE-1 sitting your attention is brought to the fact that it is open to you to apply to the Education Committee to consider exempting you from re-sitting any FE1 examination previously passed by you but not then carried forward, which application would be considered by the Committee in its particular context.”

sm333 · 06-02-2020 12:24PM

rightytighty wrote: »

Check your emails, mine came 30th Jan.

“Dear Candidate,

You may be aware that following the coming into operation on 1 January 2020 of The Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2011 (Apprenticeship and Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I. No 503 of 2019), a candidate sitting the FE-1 post-January 2020 will be deemed to have passed each examination they actually pass. The previous applicable Regulations required a candidate initially to pass at least three of the eight FE-1 examinations in order to be able to carry forward those passes to a subsequent FE-1 sitting. Any FE-1 examination passed short of that minimum of three would not have been permitted to carry forward any passes actually obtained.

If you fall into this category and if you intend to sit the next FE-1 sitting (March 2020) or any subsequent FE-1 sitting your attention is brought to the fact that it is open to you to apply to the Education Committee to consider exempting you from re-sitting any FE1 examination previously passed by you but not then carried forward, which application would be considered by the Committee in its particular context.”

Thank you!! Definitely didn't receive an email but I contacted them and they just sent me on the form there. Do we know if anyone has carried over passes from before October 2019? On the form it refers to any exams pre 1 Jan 2020 but I'm afraid I'm getting my hopes up here as I sat (and passed two of) my first three a year ago!!

rightytighty · 06-02-2020 12:25PM

sm333 wrote: »

Thank you!! Definitely didn't receive an email but I contacted them and they just sent me on the form there. Do we know if anyone has carried over passes from before October 2019? On the form it refers to any exams pre 1 Jan 2020 but I'm afraid I'm getting my hopes up here as I sat (and passed two of) my first three a year ago!!

Yeah if you go back a few pages folks got them carried forward

sm333 · 06-02-2020 12:29PM

rightytighty wrote: »

Yeah if you go back a few pages folks got them carried forward

Ok you are really saving my day right now.

THANK YOU!

LJones18 · 06-02-2020 02:51PM

Which topics are people covering for Tort, Property, Constitutional and Criminal?

Would be grateful for any help trying to narrow down!

supercreative · 06-02-2020 03:05PM

Anyone have an up-to-date grid for Constitutional?

Jeremiah25 · 06-02-2020 04:29PM

Any predictions for company my good people?

luimneachabu73 · 06-02-2020 07:10PM

Does anyone know which topic Q1 of the Property Oct 19 exam was? Cheers

EAA123 · 06-02-2020 10:03PM

Hi

Does anyone have a copy of eu October 2019 paper

Can swap for others

Thanks

hullaballoo · 07-02-2020 08:51AM

Moderator: A reminder to members that no trading is allowed in this thread other than exam grids.

The opening post on this thread sets out the history behind this rule.

sm333 · 07-02-2020 12:02PM

iamanengine wrote: »

So I have notes done for -

Interpretation
President/AG
Oireachtas
Courts
SOP
Referendums
Unenumerated Rights
Personal Rights
Fair Procedure
Freedom of Expression
Equality
Family/Education
Property Rights
Religious Freedom
Proportionality
Judicial Review

I'm thinking I'll probably need to cut this down a bit. On the other hand I'm wondering if I should cover Trial in Due Course...it's so hard to know what to cover

Thank you so much, and I know!! I would love to aim to do all of them but there’s just no way I could learn off enough case law so think I will stick with the above and be able to do fewer topics more thoroughly

The very best of luck ðŸ˜Š

jewels652 · 07-02-2020 12:34PM

sm333 wrote: »

Thank you so much, and I know!! I would love to aim to do all of them but there’s just no way I could learn off enough case law so think I will stick with the above and be able to do fewer topics more thoroughly

The very best of luck ðŸ˜Š

I am hoping to cover those topics bar for the Oireachtas and the courts but instead I’ll have trial in due course. I hope is enough

sm333 · 07-02-2020 12:51PM

Legaleagle37 wrote: »

Does anyone know if Kerins judgment made an appearance on October Con paper? Are we expecting it for March?

Would love some guidance on this too, if we think there's a shot it would be a handy Q to cover well!!

rightytighty · 07-02-2020 02:32PM

sm333 wrote: »

Would love some guidance on this too, if we think there's a shot it would be a handy Q to cover well!!

It didn’t come up in October

Daly29 · 07-02-2020 11:11PM

Hi Guys,

EU - Direct Effect – so the PQs all seem to follow the same logic. Directive x was not transposed in time. John wants to sue 1) the private company 2) the state – discuss

When we are discussing the private company, we are saying no horizontal direct effect.
Am I correct in saying we are saying it is open for the courts to interpret the national legislation, in line with the Directive, retrospectively as per Marleasing? So they can’t go after the private company because no horizontal direct effect, but in a way they can through indirect effect.

Then go on to Member State Liability for 2)

Thank you!

scooby321 · 08-02-2020 01:40PM

CMUL wrote: »

I am currently doing constitution for the first time. My understanding of the question is its just the delegation of legislation and the principle and policy test set out in Pigs Marketing, Cityview Press v Anco, Harvey v Min for Social Welfare, McDaid and some of the more recent cases John Fried Chicken and Bederev. McKerins is only relevent to internal matters of the Oireachtas in relation to privilege and McCrystal relates to referenda.

This makes sense. I did the non-delegation doctrine. Kerins weren't purely internal though because she wasn't a member of the Dáil? I just said that the court noted in Kerins that an agency set up by the Oireachtas will have the same protections afforded while carrying out those functions. So in Diesel Fuels that agency would have the same protections as the Oireachtas, but that they encroached on judicial territory per SOP because of the criminal sanctions. And I said McCrystal because the court said they will intervene (on the actions of the Oireachtas/agency of it) in extreme circumstances but didn't say when.

niamh1612 · 08-02-2020 02:20PM

Hey guys,
I have just started studying for EU and Criminal, could anybody shed some light on the vital topics they're studying and if they have exam grids that would be AMAZING, if anyone needs grids or notes for equity property and contract I can send them on as a swap

Hamerzan Sickles · 08-02-2020 02:29PM

iamanengine wrote: »

So I have notes done for -

Interpretation
President/AG
Oireachtas
Courts
SOP
Referendums
Unenumerated Rights
Personal Rights
Fair Procedure
Freedom of Expression
Equality
Family/Education
Property Rights
Religious Freedom
Proportionality
Judicial Review

I'm thinking I'll probably need to cut this down a bit. On the other hand I'm wondering if I should cover Trial in Due Course...it's so hard to know what to cover

What other exams are you sitting this round iamaneingine? I vaguely remember us doing mostly the same subjects in October.

DFMCD190384 · 08-02-2020 04:23PM

luimneachabu73 wrote: »

Does anyone know which topic Q1 of the Property Oct 19 exam was? Cheers

It was a question on the significant changes introduced by the Land And Conveyacing Law reform Act 2009. I have a draft answer completed if you want me to email it to you.

iamanengine · 08-02-2020 05:34PM

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

What other exams are you sitting this round iamaneingine? I vaguely remember us doing mostly the same subjects in October.

EU, Constitutional, Equity, Company and Tort.

Last time I did Criminal, Property, Contract and Tort, failed Tort.

Still in the note making stage at the moment, think I'll have the pretty much wrapped up for by Monday. Hoping that leaves me with enough time for studying. 5 in one go is a big ask though!

L.E.D · 08-02-2020 05:57PM

lauralouwa wrote: »

could you send on equity grid please?

Couldn't also get the grid please?

PerryMason2020 · 08-02-2020 08:02PM

niamh1612 wrote: »

Hey guys,
I have just started studying for EU and Criminal, could anybody shed some light on the vital topics they're studying and if they have exam grids that would be AMAZING, if anyone needs grids or notes for equity property and contract I can send them on as a swap

Hi, I haven't studied EU yet so I can't speak on that, but for Criminal I am trying to cover as much of the course as possible. Criminal is one of those exams where you could be asked 4-6 different topics within one problem question.

He seems fond of asking about the classification of crimes, detention, bail, special criminal court etc, but also to know the assaults, murder, manslaughter, sexual offences, property offences, a few defences...

Topics like threats to kill and false imprisonment are worth knowing due to how short and straightforward they are, handy to have and not hard to learn.

Harassment seems to come up a fair bit too so worth looking at and again it's an easy topic to learn - might be worth having a read over DPP v Doherty [2019] IECA 209 (available on beta.courts.ie).

It can feel like there is a lot to learn (which there is) but I'm finding that once I break each topic down, it's not so bad.

I don't have any exam grids, sorry!

Dliodoir2021 · 08-02-2020 09:42PM

Reya10 wrote: »

Hi, does anyone know if it's possible to order past papers in just one subject from the Law Society? I was looking at the website and it seems as though it you can only order all the papers for one sitting, at 6 euro each? Seems very pricey if you want to get the past few years and don't need all the subjects!

You're better to contact someone on the facebook page or donedeal about getting a full set for each subject!

Looking for october 2019 papers in company and contract if anyone has them. I have tort law in exchange

Jeremiah25 · 09-02-2020 11:14AM

What are we covering for contract? Any tips/predictions?

DFMCD190384 · 09-02-2020 01:19PM

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

What are we covering for contract? Any tips/predictions?

I would also love to know this.

Jeremiah25 · 09-02-2020 01:24PM

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

I would also love to know this.

I was thinking along the lines of;

Offer/Acceptance, Consdieration, Damages, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Fristration, Discharge and possibly a look at Exemption Clauses.

Louis Litt · 09-02-2020 02:03PM

Constitution

Are ppl covering ART 38.1 trial in due course of law?
Massive topic which does not appear to come up too frequent. Is there particular sub topics one should def cover?

niamh1612 · 09-02-2020 04:38PM

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

I was thinking along the lines of;

Offer/Acceptance, Consdieration, Damages, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Fristration, Discharge and possibly a look at Exemption Clauses.

I'm thinking: Offer/Acceptance, Consideration, Consumer Protection(defo wouldnt leave out) Terms and Exemption Clauses, Mistake and Misrep, Remedies and Discharge. Does anyone think im missing anything vital!?

JCormac · 09-02-2020 05:06PM

Is anyone else having any issues figuring out Q1 from March 2018? - The mother in her garden sunbathing, with her 17 year old child & his 17 year old friend running havoc around that garden?

According to my Grid the question covers Trespass/Rylands/Nuisance, Vicarious liability & Duty of Care. The examiner's report couldn't be less helpful on it either.

Surely Rylands v Fletcher doesn't extend to a tennis ball/ball originating from the defendants (the mothers) property, which hits the plaintiffs (Harry's) car on a main road ? (Unlike Bolton v Stone where both the the ball originated from D's private property to hit the plaintiff on the plaintiffs private property)

And for Nuisance, it couldn't be Private Nuisance because Harry's (plaintiff) car was on that road, which is presumably on public (council) property which defeats the neighbouring concept needed for a claim in Private Nuisance?

Absolute unit of a question

EAA123 · 09-02-2020 05:40PM

JCormac wrote: »

Is anyone else having any issues figuring out Q1 from March 2018? - The mother in her garden sunbathing, with her 17 year old child & his 17 year old friend running havoc around that garden?

According to my Grid the question covers Trespass/Rylands/Nuisance, Vicarious liability & Duty of Care. The examiner's report couldn't be less helpful on it either.

Surely Rylands v Fletcher doesn't extend to a tennis ball/ball originating from the defendants (the mothers) property, which hits the plaintiffs (Harry's) car on a main road ? (Unlike Bolton v Stone where both the the ball originated from D's private property to hit the plaintiff on the plaintiffs private property)

And for Nuisance, it couldn't be Private Nuisance because Harry's (plaintiff) car was on that road, which is presumably on public (council) property which defeats the neighbouring concept needed for a claim in Private Nuisance?

Absolute unit of a question

It's a question concerning the duty of care and standard of care in relation to a parent child relationship. As Matthew is not her son you have to establish did she owe a duty to Harry in this regard.

nothing to do with rylands and fletcher rule

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

Comments