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

IgoPAP · 08-08-2020 07:43PM

spygirl wrote: »

I know we are keeping it light here, those are some pretty sobering numbers today.
Just how unbreakable is that disclaimer do you reckon??? Asking for a friend.

The increased case number is due to the family members and close connections of the specific clusters in meat-processing factories being tested, and not due to some general increase in community transmission numbers all over the country. Yesterday it was mentioned that a sharp increase is expected as all the connections were being tested this week. Nothing to panic about. Not yet at least.

spygirl · 08-08-2020 07:44PM

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

Oh absolutely! But no more lockdown as of yet.

I'm less worried about a lockdown then I am about sitting in a room with strangers for three hours tbh. Measures are in place, it will be like shoplifting at Tesco, grand.

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 07:45PM

IgoPAP wrote: »

The increased case number is due to the family members and close connections of the specific clusters in meat-processing factories being tested, and not due to some general increase in community transmission numbers all over the country. Yesterday it was mentioned that a sharp increase is expected as all the connections were being tested this week. Nothing to panic about. Not yet at least.

Still 50 cases outside of those three counties with 27 of them in Dublin

But yeah there will be a big number of cases over the next few days due to the testing of family members and friends of those in the cluster.
As long as they can keep it contained it Shouldn’t spread through the community

HappyKitten62 · 08-08-2020 07:46PM

spygirl wrote: »

I'm less worried about a lockdown then I am about sitting in a room with strangers for three hours tbh. Measures are in place, it will be like shoplifting at Tesco, grand.

Don’t worry it will all be fine. And if you’re extremely concerned etc, remember it’s only an exam at the end of the day and there are much more important things in life!

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 07:49PM

Hopefully the law society or local Gardaí have provided some clarity for the people in the lockdown counties.

I’d be furious if I couldn’t sit it. There should be some contingency plan for them if they are not allowed up to sit it

iamanengine · 08-08-2020 07:50PM

spygirl wrote: »

I think different case. Mohamud is petrol lad who assaulted fella who tried to skip out on paying for petrol. Making sure people paid was closely connected with his employment, as was dealing with customers so liability applied.

Close connection test being used recently a bit in UKSC re abuse claims, schools church etc. Expected we will be following it. Have done so already as far as I can recall. An O'Donnell judgment is on the outskirts of my brain somewhere

Cool thank you.

Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud.

Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge

Edit - Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he asked the employee a question and then got attacked pretty much. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

spygirl · 08-08-2020 07:57PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Cool thank you.

Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud.

Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge

Oh god I would love a full vicarious liability question, passing off, defamation, bit of trespass to person and occupiers liability would be a dream come through. Maybe throw in liability for kids or animals for good measure.

I can keep dreaming. Any bets on Nervous Shock making an appearance?
I know it had been absent for a bit.

IgoPAP · 08-08-2020 08:00PM

It should also be noted that opening up society would lead to an inevitable increase in case numbers. That's just completely obvious. The objective was to ensure that any increase in numbers in sustainable and that our overall capacity is maintained. Beyond the complete mayhem in specific sectors such as meat-processing factories, I think we've done pretty well here all things considered.

spygirl · 08-08-2020 08:00PM

Actually given the amount of new cases on it, VL could be a good shout to make an appearance. He regularly complains students don't understand it so could throw it in for this year for the craic.

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 08:01PM

spygirl wrote: »

Oh god I would love a full vicarious liability question, passing off, defamation, bit of trespass to person and occupiers liability would be a dream come through. Maybe throw in liability for kids or animals for good measure.

I can keep dreaming. Any bets on Nervous Shock making an appearance?
I know it had been absent for a bit.

I’m thinking it will be either nervous shock or pure economic loss as an essay - I think pure economic loss came up more recently than nervous shock but I think both could be due a run

iamanengine · 08-08-2020 08:02PM

spygirl wrote: »

Oh god I would love a full vicarious liability question, passing off, defamation, bit of trespass to person and occupiers liability would be a dream come through. Maybe throw in liability for kids or animals for good measure.

I can keep dreaming. Any bets on Nervous Shock making an appearance?
I know it had been absent for a bit.

That would be a lovely paper. Yeah I fancy Nervous Shock to come up! Weird thing about Tort, depending on what topics come up it could either be easy or a nightmare.

In case you missed my edit in my last post -

Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he just asked the employee a question about getting photos printed and then got attacked. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

spygirl · 08-08-2020 08:03PM

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

I’m thinking it will be either nervous shock or pure economic loss as an essay - I think pure economic loss came up more recently than nervous shock but I think both could be due a run

An essay on nervous shock, hmm hope not.Only thing I really know about that is the historical developments and the incremental v uniform test debate to flesh it out.
Anything new in NS to be aware of?

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 08:03PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Cool thank you.

Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud.

Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge

Edit - Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he asked the employee a question and then got attacked pretty much. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

“the Supreme Court held that the test of vicarious liability is limited to circumstances where the actions of the employee were carried out in pursuing the business of the employer, and were not in an effort to deliberately harm the employer.”

Just an easy but to learn off for that case

I have the same on Mohamud case that the customer asked him something and then the employee assaulted him

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 08:04PM

spygirl wrote: »

An essay on nervous shock, hmm hope not.Only thing I really know about that is the historical developments and the incremental v uniform test debate to flesh it out.
Anything new in NS to be aware of?

I don’t have anything new just the English approach v Irish approach

IgoPAP · 08-08-2020 08:07PM

Nervous shock I have English v Irish approach; NS in the employment context. Didn't think there was anything else to NS!

spygirl · 08-08-2020 08:10PM

iamanengine wrote: »

That would be a lovely paper. Yeah I fancy Nervous Shock to come up! Weird thing about Tort, depending on what topics come up it could either be easy or a nightmare.

In case you missed my edit in my last post -

Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he just asked the employee a question about getting photos printed and then got attacked. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?

I'm going to recheck that bit, but my notes said after initial inquiry he followed customer out the forecourt and told him never to come back. Then the altercation occurred. not even sure where I got that bit from so need to look. I assumed was just from reading the case. Other than that my facts match yours. No break in the sequence of events so liability was held as just and reasonable in the circumstances.

LJones18 · 08-08-2020 08:12PM

With regards to Citizenship (EU Law)

If an individual from another EU MS has been residing in another MS, for more than 5 years, not working, will they gain rights of Residency?

If they have not been seeking employment?

Do the facts change depending on whether they are a Job Seeker?

Sorry might be a simple question, just not wrapping my head around the citizenship chapter very well!

lawd20 · 08-08-2020 08:56PM

spygirl wrote: »

Apologies, I took this off topic. Right so vicarious Liability. Close connection test, would I be safe enough just taking in Lister, Elmonton and Reilly? is there anyone I am missing in that list?

Say you were to answer a close connection test essay question (q6 Oct 2018), you'd need more than those.

Cases I'd suggest referencing: ,
Canada:
Blazey v Curry
Doe v Bennett
TW v SEO

UK:
Lister
Mohamad v Morrisons Supermarkets
Magda v Birmingham Roman Catholic

claimant being 12, and positionof priest in charge of youth activities also gave him special responsibilities and allowed him to develop the relationship with the claimant

Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society
Various Claimants v Morrisons

EE deliberately leaked 100,000 employees data online. Failed close connection test, distinction between actions of employees who are engaged, in furthering their employers’ business VS furthering self interests/on a frolic.

Ireland:
O'Keefe v Hickey and Department of Education

Fennelly's close connection test (must be a close connection between the work EE is employed to do (i.e. the scope of employment) -and- the tortious act that they have committed.

Hickey v McGowan (SC approving Fennelly in O'Keefe)
Elmontem v Nethercross Limited & Ors: 2014: IEHC “close connection test” adopted. a case in which an employee, hit another employee,– the court held that even on the most liberal interpretation of the close connection test, the employer was not vicariously liable.

Hope this helps!!

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 09:11PM

lawd20 wrote: »

Say you were to answer a close connection test essay question (q6 Oct 2018), you'd need more than those.

Cases I'd suggest referencing: ,
Canada:
Blazey v Curry
Doe v Bennett
TW v SEO

UK:
Lister
Mohamad v Morrisons Supermarkets
Magda v Birmingham Roman Catholic
claimant being 12, and positionof priest in charge of youth activities also gave him special responsibilities and allowed him to develop the relationship with the claimant
Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society
Various Claimants v Morrisons
EE deliberately leaked 100,000 employees data online. Failed close connection test, distinction between actions of employees who are engaged, in furthering their employers’ business VS furthering self interests/on a frolic.

Ireland:
O'Keefe v Hickey and Department of Education
Fennelly's close connection test (must be a close connection between the work EE is employed to do (i.e. the scope of employment) -and- the tortious act that they have committed.
Hickey v McGowan (SC approving Fennelly in O'Keefe)
Elmontem v Nethercross Limited & Ors: 2014: IEHC “close connection test” adopted. a case in which an employee, hit another employee,– the court held that even on the most liberal interpretation of the close connection test, the employer was not vicariously liable.

Hope this helps!!

What’s worrying me is that my sample answer made no reference to the close connection test at all for that question.

Don’t think I’ll be relying on any sample answers anymore

lawd20 · 08-08-2020 09:18PM

sent you a DM there.

godfather2 · 08-08-2020 09:22PM

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

What’s worrying me is that my sample answer made no reference to the close connection test at all for that question.

Don’t think I’ll be relying on any sample answers anymore

Close connection test really only used in difficult cases. Not an employee, or not in furtherance of their duties, scope of employment.
Courts usually just jeep VL test simple unless the facts call for a bit more. My own interpretation so I wouldn't panic about it to be honest. Be aware of it, skim the basics

sunnylegal · 08-08-2020 09:26PM

Hi, could we keep this thread purely for legal questions and not COVID related matters - we’ll find out if they are cancelled - all the talk in the world isn’t going to change the current public health situation.

A pandemic for many, is full of grief.
Furthermore, exams are also very stressful. The constant hypothetical whirlwind here isn’t doing anybody any favours!

No disregard at all, sure it’s on all our minds atm.
Just maybe a suggestion for the well being of us all.

08-08-2020 10:12PM

What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic

Aoibhin511 · 08-08-2020 10:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic

I can't decide if it's definitely due a break or has become a guaranteed question

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 10:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic

I’ve decided to leave it out. Couldn’t bring myself to do it even if it could be a guaranteed question

godfather2 · 08-08-2020 10:27PM

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

I can't decide if it's definitely due a break or has become a guaranteed question

I gambled on it being due a break previously and paid dearly for it. Honestly don't think there is much you can safely skip for this exam. Inch deep mile wide scenario.

Fe1student1234 · 08-08-2020 10:28PM

godfather2 wrote: »

I gambled on it being due a break previously and paid dearly for it. Honestly don't think there is much you can safely skip for this exam. Inch deep mile wide scenario.

I think if you have everything else covered and leave out one or two topics you should be fine !!

Sunflowers8 · 08-08-2020 10:29PM

Anyone know if, when you finally pass all the FE1s and get a letter to prove so, whether it shows the ones you failed/were absent for? Like my results letter this week showed I was absent for Tort in March, will my final letter say the same?

08-08-2020 10:32PM

godfather2 wrote: »

I gambled on it being due a break previously and paid dearly for it. Honestly don't think there is much you can safely skip for this exam. Inch deep mile wide scenario.

That’s my approach for now but I just don’t know how I’m gonna cram it all into my brain!

Sure look, if anyone’s panicking - we’re in the middle of a pandemic! Reasons for failing an exam don’t come much more valid than that!

iamanengine · 08-08-2020 10:37PM

Is Morrissey v HSE only relevant for medical negligence or does it apply elsewhere?

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

Comments