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

CMUL wrote: »

Any hope in hell of a pass in constitution with only 4 answers? I only knew 4 even though I covered 26 topics. Feel like I just wasted the last 3 months of my life

You could pass with 4 strong answers, I'm sure it came across in your answers that you did alot of work and I think that is mainly what they want a broad knowledge. Its disheartening if you feel it didn't go your way after spending all that time but like you won't know til you get results and worst case scenario you see what can improve. They are extremely demanding exams and even with the best efforts things can not go your way but sure wait and see and you might have passed it

Just noticed a mistake in the Constitutional paper

Q2 refers to Leontjava v Minister for Justice, but this is a mix up of Laurentiu v Minster for Justice and Leontjava and Chang v DPP

So in my answer I referred to Leontjava v Minister for Justice and Laurentiu and Chang v DPP :rolleyes:

I'll hardly be docked marks for that?

LawStudent1234 wrote: »

I don’t think so..

In that question I also talked about other cases of principles and policies was this relevant or will I loose marks for not sticking to the question?

You will be fine, I mentioned other cases too

iamanengine wrote: »

Just noticed a mistake in the Constitutional paper

Q2 refers to Leontjava v Minister for Justice, but this is a mix up of Laurentiu v Minster for Justice and Leontjava and Chang v DPP

So in my answer I referred to Leontjava v Minister for Justice and Laurentiu and Chang v DPP :rolleyes:

I'll hardly be docked marks for that?

No way?? I was thinking I couldn't remember what that case was but had Laurentiu in my answer so hopefully that's enough

Law000 wrote: »

Can anyone explain Q8 Constitutional!? I went with standing as her rights were in imminent danger of being adversely affected!??

I pretty much winged that one using Buckley v AG. Massively winged it again by saying it was an incursion into judicial function by capping the amounts, similar to mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines contrasting Ellis. Retrospective effect not allowed etc. Said she had a right to an effective remedy and this could impinge on that. Think I died a slow death on that one.
Never thought of standing tbh.

godfather2 wrote: »

I pretty much winged that one using Buckley v AG. Massively winged it again by saying it was an incursion into judicial function by capping the amounts, similar to mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines contrasting Ellis. Retrospective effect not allowed etc. Said she had a right to an effective remedy and this could impinge on that. Think I died a slow death on that one.
Never thought of standing tbh.

I went with the Buckley route as well. Also shoehorned in a bit about the cap potentially affecting her right to access courts (though I think that’s a stretch). I was afraid to leave it out though.

godfather2 wrote: »

I pretty much winged that one using Buckley v AG. Massively winged it again by saying it was an incursion into judicial function by capping the amounts, similar to mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines contrasting Ellis. Retrospective effect not allowed etc. Said she had a right to an effective remedy and this could impinge on that. Think I died a slow death on that one.
Never thought of standing tbh.

I more or less said the same, hopefully should be fine

What are we focusing on for contract?

Just wondering if equity is a tough marker?

So much to know and I'm worried that I won't be able to retain it all.

Anyone else feeling like this?

godfather2 wrote: »

Atm, prayer. Anyone else?

I’m terrified thinking about it! Any predictions whatsoever would be a great help!

sm333 wrote: »

For the constitutional paper did anyone answer question 7 open justice? I wrote about FOE privacy rights of the press etc as the case was about defamation suits being held in public but I’m not sure if I went down the wrong track and I’m over thinking now!!

Don't start dissecting the exam too much. Post mortems of the exam rarely helpful. Didn't do that question so don't know. Would suggest focus on the next mountain. Am sure you did ok though, so don't sweat it.

sm333 wrote: »

For the constitutional paper did anyone answer question 7 open justice? I wrote about FOE privacy rights of the press etc as the case was about defamation suits being held in public but I’m not sure if I went down the wrong track and I’m over thinking now!!

Rights of the press is definitely part of it so I'm sure you did fine

CMUL wrote: »

Thanks for that. I doubt I did 4 strong I was panicking when I knew I didnt have 5 questions so started badly. I had a load of spelling mistakes as well from being so frazzled. I could have answered the locus standi one but just didnt see it. Trying to get back into study now is very difficult

I didn't recognise locus stand either and had good answer prepped, kinda thought exam was awful when first opened page but then calmed down a bit once I actually read and thought about it.

I'm a terrible speller and I have seen in exam reports that they give out about my writing and still pass. They really don't mark down for small mistake and nitty gritty things. Once you get your point across and apply it that is really the substance of it. I remember a lecturer in college said you are not studying to be a secretary and have tidy handwriting and be neat you are studying to know the law, once you know it and can apply it that's all that matters. No examiner marks down for spelling and that.

I have so much to do for equity but gonna take a break for while and get stuck into it later, good luck hope the rest of them go well for you and don't let that knock you, it was just one.

Me too. No one else understands like we do 🀣🀣🀣

quote="sm333;112745361"]This thread is saving my mental health rn...[/quote]

Sorry if it has already been asked and I’ve missed it but what’s everyone learning for contract and company.. the pressure is on.