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

Louis Litt

The nerves have kicked in!

CiaraND16

Does anyone know what date the October exams are roughly? I need to book off work and when I rang the law school they said they were too busy to tell me so to email them but could take a week for a response ðŸ™႒

awsah

CiaraND16 wrote: »

Does anyone know what date the October exams are roughly? I need to book off work and when I rang the law school they said they were too busy to tell me so to email them but could take a week for a response ðŸ™႒

there was an earlier post that said that the person called the law society and was told October 6 to 15th. Hopefully we will find out on Friday, or next Monday!

LJones18

For Tort, Where something escapes from the land i understand this falls under Rylands and Fletcher? But if it is something escaping onto the neighbouring land over a period of time does this then fall under Private Nuisance instead?

Any tips for how to tell between the two?

Bask453

LJones18 wrote: »

For Tort, Where something escapes from the land i understand this falls under Rylands and Fletcher? But if it is something escaping onto the neighbouring land over a period of time does this then fall under Private Nuisance instead?

Any tips for how to tell between the two?

I think it boils down to whether or not the thing escaping has been accumulated for non-natural use.
So for example, in Superquinn v Bray UDC, the accumulation of water in an artificial lake was seen as non-natural use and Rylands applied. Whereas water accumulated for plumbing and household use would be a natural use and so ordinary nuisance would apply as opposed to Rylands.

EAA123

TORT

does anyone have a sample answer for march 2019 or what you would say in relation to causation and the multiple causes?

thanks

iamanengine

The day before an exam is sooooo grim

Louis Litt

iamanengine wrote: »

The day before an exam is sooooo grim

Yeah just at the stage where i want to get it over with now but at same time want all the time i can get.

spygirl

iamanengine wrote: »

The day before an exam is sooooo grim

Think this is bad, wait until the morning of an exam, special kind of hell awaits us lol.

It's going to be grand and if it's not, there is October, or March. This year students have been turned upside down on multiple occasions due to social circumstances. We still kept going. Grit is a more valuable skill then rote learning, both personally and professionally. We got this either way.

I'm at the cheerleader phase of my panic process, which could mean either denial or acceptance.

Hiya1234

EAA123 wrote: »

TORT

does anyone have a sample answer for march 2019 or what you would say in relation to causation and the multiple causes?

thanks

I would say UK applies material contribution test to multiple causes but Ireland has yet to adopted material contribution test as per Quinn. So we apply But For. If it is multi factored causes - apply but for as per Wilsher, Cheyward and Quinn.

Lallers96

I'm at the point where I just want to sit it now, which is a good place to be. I'm jumping from normal pre game jitters and super confident, with no in between! Just keeping the fingers crossed for a straightforward paper and that I can safely answer 5 questions and I'll be over the moon with that.

Not looking forward to my usual bad sleep in a hotel bed, oh well!

Healyjhow

In VL - when do you apply the simple test V the close connection test?

Hiya1234

Healyjhow wrote: »

In VL - when do you apply the simple test V the close connection test?

Close connection test is generally used where the employee commits a deliberate/intentional wrong. So it has been primarily used in the sexual abuses cases. The scope test is then used when the employee is doing his job and acting within parameters of authority delegated to him by the employer.

So in a problem q if the employee is in breach of policy or was deliberately told not to do something - apply the course/close connection test. If the employee was doing something he was meant to do but did negligently apply the scope test!

Hope this helps

[Deleted User]

How would people tackle a general tort query q? Like last sitting asked discuss potential reform and the function of tort law?

EAA123

Deleted User wrote: »

How would people tackle a general tort query q? Like last sitting asked discuss potential reform and the function of tort law?

maybe talk about the history of tort law and its functions then pick a few areas of it where reform is needed such as limitation of actions. for example in the report on limitations of action 2011 they said the legislation should be more simplified.

something along them lines..

lawgrad49

Could anyone provide an overview of some recent cases/development in the area of Damages? I have Morrissey v HSE (2020) that states General Damages are capped at 500k and there was also LRC proposals in Dec 2019 about capping General Damages.

I have a sample answer from a few years back and it really just lists the 5 categories of damages and some case law.

Or could anyone think of what angle the examiner might approach a Damages essay? Thanks!

iamanengine

lawgrad49 wrote: »

Could anyone provide an overview of some recent cases/development in the area of Damages? I have Morrissey v HSE (2020) that states General Damages are capped at 500k and there was also LRC proposals in Dec 2019 about capping General Damages.

I have a sample answer from a few years back and it really just lists the 5 categories of damages and some case law.

Or could anyone think of what angle the examiner might approach a Damages essay? Thanks!

Would you mind sharing the LRC proposals? I don't have anything for that

Lcork23

Does anybody have a sample answer for EU law - Q2 in October 2019? It is an essay question on 'equivalence' and 'practical possibility' and the Pelati v Slovenia. The question seems to have come up a number of times in recent years but I do not have anything on it and there's nothing in my manual.

lawgrad49

iamanengine wrote: »

Would you mind sharing the LRC proposals? I don't have anything for that

Yeah nb, I didn't read the whole thing just a few online articles. Here's one from MHC: https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/capping-damages-in-personal-injuries-actions-a-summary-of-the-law-reform-commissions-proposals

EAA123

lawgrad49 wrote: »

Could anyone provide an overview of some recent cases/development in the area of Damages? I have Morrissey v HSE (2020) that states General Damages are capped at 500k and there was also LRC proposals in Dec 2019 about capping General Damages.

I have a sample answer from a few years back and it really just lists the 5 categories of damages and some case law.

Or could anyone think of what angle the examiner might approach a Damages essay? Thanks!

i have kearney -v- mcquillan (doctor performed unnecessary operation - symphysiotomy) where on appeal the SC reduced her damages on the basis that while her injuries were severe they could not be considered as serious as someone who had suffered catastrophic injuries such as paralysis. They reduced from €450K to €325K

shortt v commissioner of an garda siochana 2007 RE exemplary damages

philip v ryan RE aggravated - doctor altered his notes

user115

vid36 wrote: »

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

Thanks for the reply, I emailed them at least 3 times now about it. Did you get yours?

I spoke to them last week on the phone and they tried to pass off not issuing letters as legitimate, they said we never told you that you would receive a letter. I feel like they are being really unfair, it's not much to ask to get a letter confirming I passed since I spent 2 years of my life studying for these exams. It's unreal how they treat fe1 candidates given that they are a professional body. I'm really going to look into complaining about them...... 3 months like come on get it together!!

iamanengine

user115 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, I emailed them at least 3 times now about it. Did you get yours?

I spoke to them last week on the phone and they tried to pass off not issuing letters as legitimate, they said we never told you that you would receive a letter. I feel like they are being really unfair, it's not much to ask to get a letter confirming I passed since I spent 2 years of my life studying for these exams. It's unreal how they treat fe1 candidates given that they are a professional body. I'm really going to look into complaining about them...... 3 months like come on get it together!!

Madness. You need to send them that letter with your Blackhall application so don't know how they are telling you that

Lawgrad101

I’d be grateful if someone could clarify the tests regarding Vicarious Liability. Are the course of employment test and the close connection test essentially the same thing? More broad than the scope of employment test which only covers express/implied delegated authority of the employee. Thanks in advance!

lsheehaneire

EU Quick question
FMOW - the case of Hoekstra. I have in my notes that the term "worker" has a specfic definition in EU law to ensure uniformity in EU law.
BUT there is no definition of a worker in EU law ?? Can anyone clarify?

nmurphy1441

What essays are people predicting to come up on the Tort paper???

LJones18

Hoekstra raised the question as to whether the definition of a worker was Supanational, which they said it was as if the definition was up to MS it would undermine uniformity.

Worker is not defined in the treaties, the definition is just taken from Case Law. I think the Lawrie Blaum case gives somewhat of a def also.

Louis Litt

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

What essays are people predicting to come up on the Tort paper???

Looks like Damages is due and usually comes up as an essay. Would love a development of DOC essay too.

Healyjhow

In regards to nervous shock would you need to establish a duty of care was owed to the individual in question? Just because nervous shock is born out of duty of care or do you look as it as unrelated ?

lsheehaneire

Thanks , much appreciated! So basically, Hoekstra held that uniformity would be undermined if each MS applied thier own definition for the term "worker" ?

Fe1student1234

Louis Litt wrote: »

Looks like Damages is due and usually comes up as an essay. Would love a development of DOC essay too.

I’m also thinking limitations ! Hasn’t come up in three sittings. Damages was on the paper in March 2019