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

DFMCD190384 · 04-08-2020 12:20PM

lawFE1s19976 wrote: »

Has anyone received their letter today? A little bit worried with how late they're leaving it

I did and my letter says the RDS. I'm sure yours is on the way and hopefully you will get it today or tomorrow. Mine was dated 30th July so they only left late last week.

lawgrad49 · 04-08-2020 12:27PM

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

From what I read they were found guilty of negligence ?

The Nuisance/Negligence elements confused me a little here also. I had a glance through the Judgment and from what I gather the SC didn't really go into detail on Nuisance as they found ESB liable in Negligence. There is talk of the Leaky Jurisprudence a few times but that seems to link back to the High Court ruling...

For Negligence/DOC at least you can reference it saying it's a clear endorsement for Glencar etc.

lawgrad15 · 04-08-2020 12:31PM

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

From what I read they were found guilty of negligence ?

Yes, I took that reading too. Though judgment did refer to nuisance but as mentioned, elected to deal with issues on grounds of negligence.

In respect of the initial question asked re areas which judgment can relate to, I would say it's quite important for negligence (standard of care) and also public authority liability which also falls under negligence in my notes.

lawgrad15 · 04-08-2020 12:33PM

lawgrad49 wrote: »

The Nuisance/Negligence elements confused me a little here also. I had a glance through the Judgment and from what I gather the SC didn't really go into detail on Nuisance as they found ESB liable in Negligence. There is talk of the Leaky Jurisprudence a few times but that seems to link back to the High Court ruling...

For Negligence/DOC at least you can reference it saying it's a clear endorsement for Glencar etc.

I thought the judges questioned the helpfulness of some of the elements of Glencar?

Fe1student1234 · 04-08-2020 12:36PM

They did they questioned what they have to look at as part of the fair and reasonable limb of the test

lawgrad49 · 04-08-2020 12:43PM

lawgrad15 wrote: »

I thought the judges questioned the helpfulness of some of the elements of Glencar?

Yeah sorry I meant that you can use the USB case to simply say the court said that the starting point for any consideration of the extent of the DOC in this jurisdiction must be Glencar. I'm thinking as a snappy intro to a problem Q rather than delving back into a full blown history of the development of DOC.

I know they questioned how useful the 3rd part of the test is as it's difficult to determine what is just and equitable.

lawgrad49 · 04-08-2020 12:46PM

DFMCD190384 wrote: »

I did and my letter says the RDS. I'm sure yours is on the way and hopefully you will get it today or tomorrow. Mine was dated 30th July so they only left late last week.

Same here, just got my letter and it says the RDS also.

lawd20 · 04-08-2020 01:36PM

Got letter for croke park

Debarramike137 · 04-08-2020 02:21PM

Does anyone know if the AG or president came up in March's constitutional please?

Supermax1988 · 04-08-2020 02:47PM

Debarramike137 wrote: »

Does anyone know if the AG or president came up in March's constitutional please?

No didn't come up in March.

Twinings2016 · 04-08-2020 03:16PM

Does anyone think Professional/Medical Negligence will come up again?

Just contemplating leaving it out, but then would be raging if it came up!

Fe1student1234 · 04-08-2020 03:18PM

Twinings2016 wrote: »

Does anyone think Professional/Medical Negligence will come up again?

Just contemplating leaving it out, but then would be raging if it came up![/quote

I’m doing it anyway !! Only thing I’m not looking at is defamation and some of the smaller topics that don’t come up like deceit and conversion

Iso_123 · 04-08-2020 03:28PM

Twinings2016 wrote: »

Does anyone think Professional/Medical Negligence will come up again?

Just contemplating leaving it out, but then would be raging if it came up!

I have it covered but I have a funny feeling that if it does come up it's not going to be in the context of a doctor/medical staff! I feel they may try put it into the context of a solicitor or some financial/tax professional..

I am only thinking this because a professional negligence question came up in relation to a tax advisor in October 2016 and not since then! To be honest I didn't like the question so I will probably avoid it if it comes up like this again

Trainee1986 · 04-08-2020 04:01PM

Hi everyone, posting this again for anyone else interested. My firm - an established criminal and personal injuries firm located in Dublin 1 - is looking to give an extended internship (at least 6 months) starting September/Oct 2020. This would suit a bright graduate interested in gaining daily court experience and advocacy skills (firm works in all courts from District up to Supreme). This is a hands-on role. Review of applications will begin on 17th August.

Send me a message for more details.

MrAlex123 · 04-08-2020 04:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone had any correspondence re the October timetable? I was going to plan my subjects around that, but I’m getting very anxious now about starting!

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

In need of two specific EU essay sample answers if anyone can help me out... they come up quite regularly! The principle of equivalence (pelati question) and the non privileged applicants judicial review question! Or any insight would be greatly appreciated

Pretty sure Equivalence has only been asked twice (Oct 19 & Mar 17) in the past 16 sittings.

JR essays are only ever examined in two ways. The only difference is you either begin with Plaumann or UDA - after that they are the exact same essay. The problem JR questions are extremely easy - your essay will more or less answer it. If you PM me your email I'll try find some of my sample answers from March and send them over.

P.s. it's extremely important you include a 'challenges post Lisbon' paragraph in any JR question explaining the meaning of 'regulatory acts' (Inuit). He's expressly called candidates out in his examiner report for not including this.

Twinings2016 · 04-08-2020 04:52PM

Iso_123 wrote: »

I have it covered but I have a funny feeling that if it does come up it's not going to be in the context of a doctor/medical staff! I feel they may try put it into the context of a solicitor or some financial/tax professional..

I am only thinking this because a professional negligence question came up in relation to a tax advisor in October 2016 and not since then! To be honest I didn't like the question so I will probably avoid it if it comes up like this again

Yeah! I was thinking the same after looking through the exam papers. This is probably a really stupid Q, but do the Dunne principles apply to professional negligence or just Medical? I'm trying to map out an answer.

Also, does anyone know how to have answered the one from October 2019?? Again, looks a bit tricky and not sure how best to have approached it??

lawhead12 · 04-08-2020 05:06PM

Has anyone heard anything re Cork exam venues?

Healyjhow · 04-08-2020 05:18PM

Just wondering if anyone could steer me in the right direction of what that topics they are covering/seriously revising for tort - it’s my first time sitting an FE1 and I’m just trying to figure out how many topics genuinely focus on/what they think will be important for this sitting! Any help would be so appreciated

Iso_123 · 04-08-2020 05:25PM

Twinings2016 wrote: »

Yeah! I was thinking the same after looking through the exam papers. This is probably a really stupid Q, but do the Dunne principles apply to professional negligence or just Medical? I'm trying to map out an answer.

Also, does anyone know how to have answered the one from October 2019?? Again, looks a bit tricky and not sure how best to have approached it??

Well I know the case Roche v Peilow stated that "general approved practice" rule applies to solicitors too so I would assume it applies to tax/financial advisors or any professional as well.. Really not sure how to approach that question either to be honest!

I saw a sample answer that answered it in the context of negligent misstatement but the question actually says advise for professional negligence so this confused me even more to be honest!

Fe1student1234 · 04-08-2020 05:28PM

I’m currently trying to do everything bar defamation.

Focusing on
•General Principles of Negligence - DOC CAUSATION STANDARD OF CARE
•Professional Neg
•Nervous Shock
•Limitations of Action
•Passing Off
•Nuisance
•Rylands v Fletcher
• Vicarious Liability
•Occupiers Liability
•Products Liability
•Employers Liability

Iso_123 · 04-08-2020 05:36PM

Healyjhow wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone could steer me in the right direction of what that topics they are covering/seriously revising for tort - it’s my first time sitting an FE1 and I’m just trying to figure out how many topics genuinely focus on/what they think will be important for this sitting! Any help would be so appreciated

These are the topics I have covered anyway;

General negligence (DOC, standard of care, causation, remoteness)
Pure Economic loss/Negligent misstatement
Trespass to person
Land torts (nuisance, trespass, rylands)
Nervous shock
Vicarious Liability
Employers Liability
Occupiers Liability
Product Liability
Professional Negligence
Passing off
Limitations
Defamation

Healyjhow · 04-08-2020 05:59PM

Thank you so much for this!

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

I’m currently trying to do everything bar defamation.

Focusing on
•General Principles of Negligence - DOC CAUSATION STANDARD OF CARE
•Professional Neg
•Nervous Shock
•Limitations of Action
•Passing Off
•Nuisance
•Rylands v Fletcher
• Vicarious Liability
•Occupiers Liability
•Products Liability
•Employers Liability

Debarramike137 · 04-08-2020 06:12PM

Supermax1988 wrote: »

No didn't come up in March.

Thanks a lot

HappyKitten62 · 04-08-2020 06:37PM

For tort, would it be foolish to leave out:

Functions of tort law
Concurrent wrongdoers
Negligent care of children
Statutory liability
Defective premises

I’ve everything else covered.

TIA.

Pc_law · 04-08-2020 06:41PM

Has anybody else not received a letter from the law society yet regarding the exams next week? Really poor that they are leaving it so late!

HappyKitten62 · 04-08-2020 06:44PM

Pc_law wrote: »

Has anybody else not received a letter from the law society yet regarding the exams next week? Really poor that they are leaving it so late!

I haven’t either. I rang and no answer so left a message and they didn’t ring me back. I also emailed and haven’t heard a thing! Not helping the stress.

Fe1student1234 · 04-08-2020 06:47PM

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

For tort, would it be foolish to leave out:

Functions of tort law
Concurrent wrongdoers
Negligent care of children
Statutory liability
Defective premises

I’ve everything else covered.

TIA.

I’d definitely recommend glancing over concurrent wrongdoers as it could come up in an essay or as a small part of a problem question

HappyKitten62 · 04-08-2020 06:50PM

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

I’d definitely recommend glancing over concurrent wrongdoers as it could come up in an essay or as a small part of a problem question

Thanks!

lawgrad15 · 04-08-2020 07:46PM

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

I’d definitely recommend glancing over concurrent wrongdoers as it could come up in an essay or as a small part of a problem question

Was going to say the same. It's useful to know even a few of the cases. Plus it's quite short too.

L.E.D · 04-08-2020 08:05PM

Are the Dublin exams being sat in both croke park and the RDS? I live about 20 minutes from croke park but my letter says rds?

Wonder if I can change !

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

Comments