nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Tom Young

This is the new FE1 Exam Thread

This is a link to the old one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055143169

This is a link to the next one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056907164

Sorry, I'm aware we are in the throws of FE1 season, but due to a server issue, a new thread was required. Old chats and posts below - Thanks!

Mod warning in post #1205: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88514663&postcount=1205

Mod warning in post #2555: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91819622&postcount=2555

Mod warning in post #2593: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92025688&postcount=2593

Moderator: The above warnings mean it is not ok to buy, sell or swap (trade) any exam materials in this thread. Exam grids are the only exception. You may request and exchange exam grids but at no point will money be allowed to change hands for them.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Healyjhow

EAA123 wrote: »

yes because if you think about it for anyone to rely on the rylands v fletcher rule something that the other person has brought onto the land (accumulation) has to escape in order to cause the damage and it must be something non-natural. If there was no damage a person would not be bringing a claim

hope that helps

Thank you very much

EAA123

Rainbow25 wrote: »

For vicarious liability and the scope of employment and course of employment tests can anyone please explain when you would apply one over the other? Very confused!

i think you use the course of the employment for unauthorised acts - when the third party does something closely connected to his work such, for example in the mohumad v morrisons case he was acting on behalf of his employer's business i.e attending to customers

whereas the scope test is based on acts the employer has actually authorised the employee to do

IgoPAP

For those that might need to know, to summarise all of the examiners reports for the Tort exam, it goes like this:

- The main issue is the 'inability of most candidates to focus their answers on the relevant issues that arise in the question and a tendency persists to provide global, comprehensive statements of law across the broader topic of the question.'

- 'Another issue that arises from this exam sitting is that some candidates would be well advised to formulate a clear structure to their answers. There appears to be a tendency to rush into writing an answer without giving any thought to the structure that answer should take. This often results in an answer which tends to ramble or appear to consist of a series of random thoughts linked to the question but fails to provide a logical and clear exposition of how the issue should be addressed.'

- 'Essay questions seek to test a candidate’s ability to construct an argument in a logical and coherent fashion and address the specific issue raised.'

- 'Candidates who answer questions not on the paper limit the range of marks available to them as they deal with issues extraneous to the point at hand. The sign of a good candidate is the ability to remain focused on the task at hand.'

- 'Candidates should write the number of the questions attempted in the answer book on the space provided on the front cover. Indeed, a small but worrying amount of candidates did not even number their questions inside the answer books.'

- 'Where candidates struggled it tended to be because they insisted on answering their own question, ignoring clear and specific direction as to what was required. Too often the weaker candidates sought to given advice to the wrong party.'

- 'The headlong rush by some candidates to answer their own question, which studiously avoids the facts in the actual question or the instruction as to who to advise, results in unnecessary effort which takes away from their opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge in the given topic. '

- 'Finally, there is a continuing issue by some candidates to avoid reference to legislative authority where it is most clearly appropriate. This is not unique to this exam and although the numbers involved are small, they are not insignificant. Legislation in areas such as occupier's liability,
defamation etc....are sufficiently important that they need to be addressed when dealing with such topics and cannot be ignored or substituted through case law alone with reference to these provisions. The requirement is for the use of appropriate authority in all cases.'

- 'It cannot be stressed enough that the answers must relate to the specific question on the paper and not a generic response which appears almost entirely divorced from the question other than in general topic.'

- 'The majority of candidates still find it difficult to apply basic legal principles to the more focused areas of the problem questions, being satisfied with basic statements of law applied to the core element of the problem question.'

- 'In addition, too many candidates seem to think that the essay questions are simply asking the candidate to write down everything they know about a particular topic. Essay questions are just as nuanced as problem questions and candidates need to carefully approach essay questions and plan an appropriate structure which deals with the questions being asked.'

- 'In addition, candidates should read questions carefully and concentrate on what is being asked, including in problem questions who they are being asked to advise. Reading the question accurately is crucial to framing the answer. Too many candidates tend to answer a question that they want to answer rather than the one which is actually asked.'

- 'Unfortunately, those candidates who had pre-prepared essays on anticipated questions were somewhat exposed and struggled to fit their essays to the questions asked in the exam. The aim of the examination is to demonstrate knowledge and mastery of the subject and this is not best served with rote learned answers, particularly where much of the material has been badly remembered.'

A lot of this is very repetitive - it's clear where everyone goes wrong. Hope this helps!

Pc_law

Does anybody know what topic, Question 7 on the 2019 Tort October paper is referring to? Thanks.

lawgrad49

EAA123 wrote: »

i think you use the course of the employment for unauthorised acts - when the third party does something closely connected to his work such, for example in the mohumad v morrisons case he was acting on behalf of his employer's business i.e attending to customers

whereas the scope test is based on acts the employer has actually authorised the employee to do

I may be reading that wrong but I don't think the Close Connection ties in with the course of employment test at all? Are they not two separate tests?

From my understanding the course & scope test were the traditional tests and now the close connection test is the newer one that seems to be used by the courts?

If VL comes up I was planning on briefly mentioning the scope/course tests as the older law and that now the close connection is what we will apply.

Can someone else clarify this? Thanks!

ahhhhhFE1s

Pc_law wrote: »

Does anybody know what topic, Question 7 on the 2019 Tort October paper is referring to? Thanks.

The one about the trainee doctor? Examiner's report says it is about professional negligence with elements of liability of rescuers and that some people did not have any authority for liability of rescuers

Iso_123

lawgrad49 wrote: »

I may be reading that wrong but I don't think the Close Connection ties in with the course of employment test at all? Are they not two separate tests?

From my understanding the course & scope test were the traditional tests and now the close connection test is the newer one that seems to be used by the courts?

If VL comes up I was planning on briefly mentioning the scope/course tests as the older law and that now the close connection is what we will apply.

Can someone else clarify this? Thanks!

The city colleges lecturer suggested to use the scope/course of employment for more straight forward scenarios and use the close connection test for more complicated scenarios eg sexual abuse and assaults

Pc_law

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

The one about the trainee doctor? Examiner's report says it is about professional negligence with elements of liability of rescuers and that some people did not have any authority for liability of rescuers

That’s great - thanks!

EAA123

lawgrad49 wrote: »

I may be reading that wrong but I don't think the Close Connection ties in with the course of employment test at all? Are they not two separate tests?

From my understanding the course & scope test were the traditional tests and now the close connection test is the newer one that seems to be used by the courts?

If VL comes up I was planning on briefly mentioning the scope/course tests as the older law and that now the close connection is what we will apply.

Can someone else clarify this? Thanks!

i have that the course of employment test widens the range of activity for which an employer can be rendered VL to include not only acts which the employer has authorised (the scope test) but also unauthorised acts so long as a 'close connection' exist between the unauthorised act and the employee's work.

the reason the course test was introduced was because the workplace is changing therefore employees are expected to make their own decisions.

so if an unauthorised act they do is closely connected to their work the employer will still be liable

godfather2

Rainbow25 wrote: »

For vicarious liability and the scope of employment and course of employment tests can anyone please explain when you would apply one over the other? Very confused!

I wouldn't stress to much over scope/course of employment. Scope within duties expected, course while carrying them out. The two have been used interchangably in some cases with others at pains to show the difference in painfully convoluted ways between the two. Know a few cases and apply them if they fit with facts of your problem question. Generally theses questions state is an employee, is a contractor etc. If an employee stated, you don't need to know the difference. If contractor, was there control akin to the employment relationship.
I would get head around the close connection test.

Aoibhin511

IgoPAP wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that the Griffith sample answers is completely guilty of the main issue that the examiner points out - basically an inability to answer the questions asked?

I've been looking at some of the sample answers, and in many of them there's large blocks of text but it only slightly relates to the answer in the closing paragraphs. Surely this gives the wrong impression of how the questions should be answered?

Yes and sometimes even does the exact opposite of what the examiner has said about that specific question e.g. examiner - negligence is acceptable therefore students should not spend long on duty and standard of care and should focus on causation. Griffith answer - only looks at duty and standard, causation not mentioned once....
I lose more faith in them every day.

user115

vid36 wrote: »

No, you just get letter saying you passed the FE1s.No other grades or anything.

Is that what you give to a firm to prove you have got all 8?

I still haven't received my letter, I'll be applying for traineeships in milk round this year so just wondering what they take as evidence

vid36

user115 wrote: »

Is that what you give to a firm to prove you have got all 8?

I still haven't received my letter, I'll be applying for traineeships in milk round this year so just wondering what they take as evidence

It should have been sent weeks ago. You also need it for the PPC1 or Hybrid application.Email the Law Society after this week.

Emmaslaw17

Hi guys almost there now!! Just wondering if anyone could help me with Tort - March 2019 Q1? It's a clear causation question but I'm unsure what cases to use, should I even mention the 'but for' test or just jump straight into material contribution for multiple successive causes? Don't want to waste prescious time in there.

Or if anyone has a sample answer just for structure as using ILAC is tough for these I find ! Thanks so much I appreciate it

Lallers96

IgoPAP wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that the Griffith sample answers is completely guilty of the main issue that the examiner points out - basically an inability to answer the questions asked?

I've been looking at some of the sample answers, and in many of them there's large blocks of text but it only slightly relates to the answer in the closing paragraphs. Surely this gives the wrong impression of how the questions should be answered?

I've often thought this about a few sample answers they have. I'll definitely be looking for other samples in future FE1 exams if possible.

I find I'm cutting out half the waffle out in my answers and the sample is a bloated broad discussion of "occupiers liability" for example, rather than simply discussing what the question is actually asking which is duty owed to recreational users. It's clear from the examiners reports they would prefer a shorter answers only answering what was asked, and you would be punished for such a general discussion which shows lack of comprehension skills at best.

Mod
Pls do not comment here on the various tutorials/grinds etc

IgoPAP

Considering there's no penalty at all for breaking the restrictions imposed on the 3 counties (apart from organising an event larger than the permitted number), I'd imagine all of the candidates from those counties can actually come to the exam without being excluded?

spygirl

Lallers96 wrote: »

I've often thought this about a few sample answers they have. I'll definitely be looking for other samples in future FE1 exams if possible.

I find I'm cutting out half the waffle out in my answers and the sample is a bloated broad discussion of "occupiers liability" for example, rather than simply discussing what the question is actually asking which is duty owed to recreational users. It's clear from the examiners reports they would prefer a shorter answers only answering what was asked, and you would be punished for such a general discussion which shows lack of comprehension skills at best.

I'm really hoping he is looking for shorter answers. Struggle to write at speed in these exams, even my sample answers are a struggle atm as out of practice. Have to try to just keep it to what I need to get in and get out in one piece. Fingers crossed he rewards brevity.

Fe1student1234

IgoPAP wrote: »

Considering there's no penalty at all for breaking the restrictions imposed on the 3 counties (apart from organising an event larger than the permitted number), I'd imagine all of the candidates from those counties can actually come to the exam without being excluded?

Just have to get through any Garda checkpoints

Fe1student1234

spygirl wrote: »

I'm really hoping he is looking for shorter answers. Struggle to write at speed in these exams, even my sample answers are a struggle atm as out of practice. Have to try to just keep it to what I need to get in and get out in one piece. Fingers crossed he rewards brevity.

Same I struggle to write due to some weird injury so I’m hoping if I just hit the main points I should okay !

Lallers96

spygirl wrote: »

I'm really hoping he is looking for shorter answers. Struggle to write at speed in these exams, even my sample answers are a struggle atm as out of practice. Have to try to just keep it to what I need to get in and get out in one piece. Fingers crossed he rewards brevity.

Just make sure you answer 5 questions. Limit your time on each question and move on! Without a second thought, because getting the first 10 or so marks is easier than getting the very high marks of 13+. If you were to give 5 decent answers you'd probably do enough to pass it, rather than 4 answers where you got say 12 marks each and ended up failing because you spent too long on them to answer a 5th.

spygirl

Fe1student1234 wrote: »

Same I struggle to write due to some weird injury so I’m hoping if I just hit the main points I should okay !

Same. If it is a big issue this time I might consider asking to be allowed type in the exam next round. Wonder would it count as being worthy of an exemption or special treatment.

ATM, just struggling to remember all the case law. Head feels like it is about to explode and I know I will need an all nighter tonight. Trying to get my notes to stick in there is killing me this time around. I get three in there and six others fall out to make room for them. All of them topics I knew last March inside out and upside down. The frustration. Arghhhh.
Think i need a break and less coffee.

Fe1student1234

spygirl wrote: »

Same. If it is a big issue this time I might consider asking to be allowed type in the exam next round. Wonder would it count as being worthy of an exemption or special treatment.

ATM, just struggling to remember all the case law. Head feels like it is about to explode and I know I will need an all nighter tonight. Trying to get my notes to stick in there is killing me this time around. I get three in there and six others fall out to make room for them. All of them topics I knew last March inside out and upside down. The frustration. Arghhhh.
Think i need a break and less coffee.

You have to get a physiotherapist to examine you for any injury to then send a request to type the exam!

Yeah I’m the same everything is a bit jumbled up and I also feel I’m too relaxed about it but st the same time panicked

spygirl

Lallers96 wrote: »

Just make sure you answer 5 questions. Limit your time on each question and move on! Without a second thought, because getting the first 10 or so marks is easier than getting the very high marks of 13+. If you were to give 5 decent answers you'd probably do enough to pass it, rather than 4 answers where you got say 12 marks each and ended up failing because you spent too long on them to answer a 5th.

That's the plan and tbh it is the only thing that works. Left two questions incomplete in Constitutional last sitting, as in very, very brief conclusions. Did much better than expected and I expected to scrape it if I was lucky. The five ok answers versus three masterpieces, a bit of dog poop or no attempt will always come out on top imo.

Iso_123

I was very calm before today but I'm definitely feeling a little overwhelmed today! Is anyone else worried about essay questions in particular? I just feel like you need quite a deep level of knowledge to answer some of the essay questions as they can be quite specific and he is so critical of giving broad/global answers!

BlackhallPlz

Could someone please explain the difference between the two tests in EU judicial review? I keep confusing myself and am getting stressed

nmurphy1441

BlackhallPlz wrote: »

Could someone please explain the difference between the two tests in EU judicial review? I keep confusing myself and am getting stressed

To determine if someone is directly and individually concerned is it?

BlackhallPlz

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

To determine if someone is directly and individually concerned is it?

Yes!

nmurphy1441

BlackhallPlz wrote: »

Yes!

I’m open to correction on this...

If the EU pass legislation and it directly affects an individual, that individual will be directly concerned (Societe Louis Dreyfus et CIE v commission)

On the other hand, if the EU pass legislation but it gives a member state a degree of discretion in how it’s applied, an individual will not be directly concerned ( Eridana v commission)

That part is pretty straight forward!

Individual concern is more or less impossible to satisfy going according to Plaumann, individual must be part of a fixed closed class!

An example of a individual concern that I’m going to use is Alfred Toepfer. If you look up this case, you’d understand I think!

BlackhallPlz

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I’m open to correction on this...

If the EU pass legislation and it directly affects an individual, that individual will be directly concerned (Societe Louis Dreyfus et CIE v commission)

On the other hand, if the EU pass legislation but it gives a member state a degree of discretion in how it’s applied, an individual will not be directly concerned ( Eridana v commission)

That part is pretty straight forward!

Individual concern is more or less impossible to satisfy going according to Plaumann, individual must be part of a fixed closed class!

An example of a individual concern that I’m going to use is Alfred Toepfer. If you look up this case, you’d understand I think!

Thank you!! Appreciate that - good luck on Thursday

ihatethesea

Regarding the EU Law Bankers,

EU Institutions
Direct and Indirect Effect & MS Liability
Judicial Review
FMOG
Citizenship

What would people say to definitely say to add to this list? If trying to avoid competition law and case note, or is that impossible ? Any advice at all is hugely appreciated!