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

Property - Adverse Possession

Could someone please tell me what was the question on Adverse Possession in March 2019?

TIA

CDarrall wrote: »

I did criminal last sitting- both came up twice! I found it handy to have a couple of case names to throw in to a problem question just to get an extra mark here or there. I didn't even learn the topic- just a few case names and knew where to put them in.

I agree with that!!! Even know the AR and MR of the inchoate offences and that will help!

Constitutional

Are ppl covering all of SOP? I'm thinking of doing:

Oir - Kerins/O'Brien, IR, Referendums
Legislature - just be able to mention P&P test and UV
Courts - Admin of Justice in public

Judiciary to be left off.

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

I'd imagine that everyone starts at the same time and when told to do so.

You’d think but in October we were told we could start once we got the exam paper which was kind of annoying for those of us a the back of the hall!

I just phoned Neptune Stadium and was told the venue won’t be open until 9!

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

Fingers crossed for a dry day so tomorrow!!

I’m going to be there a lot earlier so I hope something changes lol

iamanengine wrote: »

Constitutional

Does anyone have notes on PP v Judges of the Circuit Court? I can't really make sense of it. Also in Eoin Carolin's slides he has this down under remedies but I don't have anything on how it relates to that at all, just have that he was granted locus standi

The point on remedies is that the court can declare a provision of the constitution to be unconstitutional from a date other than 1937 (because declaring unconstitutionality from 1937 might not be workable in most cases). They said it would be "absurd and impossible" for the court to pinpoint the exact moment in time when society evolved & the provision became unworkable- therefore it could be appropriate to mark the date of the decision as the date of the unconstitutionality. O'Donnell J said that provisions can evolve into being unworkable & unconstitutional because of (1) legislative change (2) constitutional change and (3) societal change.

However- Clarke CJ stated that the entire judgment regarding the remedy & the date of unconstitutionality was on an obiter basis.

CDarrall wrote: »

The point on remedies is that the court can declare a provision of the constitution to be unconstitutional from a date other than 1937 (because declaring unconstitutionality from 1937 might not be workable in most cases). They said it would be "absurd and impossible" for the court to pinpoint the exact moment in time when society evolved & the provision became unworkable- therefore it could be appropriate to mark the date of the decision as the date of the unconstitutionality. O'Donnell J said that provisions can evolve into being unworkable & unconstitutional because of (1) legislative change (2) constitutional change and (3) societal change.

However- Clarke CJ stated that the entire judgment regarding the remedy & the date of unconstitutionality was on an obiter basis.

Thanks for explaining that. Does this line up with what the SC said in their preliminary ref of the Dwyer case re mobile phone data recently? From what I understood this means that even if the EUCJ declare the current system for data collection in Ireland not in line with GDPR and hence not in line with what is meant to be current national standards that evidence is inadmissible because the manner in which it was got was unconstitutional. However it is only inadmissible going forward from that declaration and does not invalidate previous convictions based on the evidence got on that basis prior to that. Is this correct?

Right to livelihood

If you are doing a question on this do you try to link it in to say that the livelihood is considered a property right under art 43 as mentioned in Re art 26 employment equality act? Or should you just be going on the basis that what is made subject to the livelihood must be an actual right?

I'm finding right livelihood really confusing

rightytighty wrote: »

Does anyone know what’s been predicted by the colleges for EU?

iamanengine wrote: »

In terms of essay or problem Q I have no idea, I haven't really been looking at past papers for Tort, just the grid



I don't know what has been predicted but it does seem to me to be one of the more predictable exams.

Institutions, General Principles, Direct Effect/MS Liability, Judicial Review, Free Movement of Goods, Free Movement of Workers, Competition and Citizenship are up time and again. If you have those you will almost always have 5.

I didn't do Competition, probably should have, but am doing Sources and Equality.

The usual, basically what iamanengine said up there!

Although - State Aid was predicted by IC. Very rarely comes up though.

Judicial Review was not on the prediction list despite the fact it comes up every single sitting. Unsure as to why that would be.


Very aware that this very thing might have been been said already - Making my way through the last 1000 posts :pac:

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Nope it didn't, so I think it's well worth going over for tomorrow!

That’s great, thanks! I thought it didn’t!!!! Can you tell me the other essay type questions that came up? I lost the paper!

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

Fingers crossed for a dry day so tomorrow!!

Is constitutional on tomorrow? I thought it was on Friday

JCormac wrote: »

The usual, basically what iamanengine said up there!

Although - State Aid was predicted by IC. Very rarely comes up though.

Judicial Review was not on the prediction list despite the fact it comes up every single sitting. Unsure as to why that would be.


Very aware that this very thing might have been been said already - Making my way through the last 1000 posts :pac:

Many thanks! You don’t happen to know what they reckon for Company next week too?