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

For Q4 October 2018 on occupiers liability, how would people go about answering? I can’t decide whether the question relates to state of the premises, so to then consider it in terms of the 1995 act or would it concern activities and then discuss in terms of the common law? Or should you consider both?

Fedone wrote: »

For Q4 October 2018 on occupiers liability, how would people go about answering? I can’t decide whether the question relates to state of the premises, so to then consider it in terms of the 1995 act or would it concern activities and then discuss in terms of the common law? Or should you consider both?

Whenever you say discuss it in terms of the common law, could you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean if it's an activity like bouncer hitting someone that is not due to state of premises so you analyse under Common Law?

I see the Night before notes talks about Common Law Regime also but my manual/sample answers only ever deal with OL questions under the 1995 Act. I thought the 1995 act replaces common law rules?

Could be missing something really obvious here but I've been doing sample answers on OL only ever mentioning the Act and related case law on deciding whether the Occupier has been reckless etc

Thanks!

lawgrad49 wrote: »

Whenever you say discuss it in terms of the common law, could you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean if it's an activity like bouncer hitting someone that is not due to state of premises so you analyse under Common Law?

I see the Night before notes talks about Common Law Regime also but my manual/sample answers only ever deal with OL questions under the 1995 Act. I thought the 1995 act replaces common law rules?

Could be missing something really obvious here but I've been doing sample answers on OL only ever mentioning the Act and related case law on deciding whether the Occupier has been reckless etc

Thanks!

So my manual states that you can be sued under either the common law or the act. Exactly as you’ve said if it’s an activity such as a bouncer hitting the claimant it’s considered under the common law rules (and the corresponding entrant categories and duties owed) whereas if the claim is to do with the state of the premises the 1995 act applies. I’m struggling to differentiate between whether the problem questions refer to the state or activity. I would probably mention both in my answer to be safe and give my opinion on which one I think it is but I know the examiner isn’t fond of candidates giving a complete overview of the topic

Fedone wrote: »

So my manual states that you can be sued under either the common law or the act. Exactly as you’ve said if it’s an activity such as a bouncer hitting the claimant it’s considered under the common law rules (and the corresponding entrant categories and duties owed) whereas if the claim is to do with the state of the premises the 1995 act applies. I’m struggling to differentiate between whether the problem questions refer to the state or activity. I would probably mention both in my answer to be safe and give my opinion on which one I think it is but I know the examiner isn’t fond of candidates giving a complete overview of the topic

As far as I know in past exams the occupiers liability questions have never asked about activity it is always about state so you are probably safe to assume the question wants you to talk about the state of the premises i.e. the occupier's liability act.

It should be clear from the question anyway, an activity would be someone hitting the plaintiff whereas the state would be a danger on the land itself like tripping on a dodgy boardwalk or something

In regards to approaching a nuisance question could anyone clarify as my manual isnt great with approach. If discussing a private/public nuisance would you go through act/omission, damage/interference with rights in land, unreasonableness, causation, defence, special remedies for both? or does it differ? my manual has only the headings of obstruction and dangers for public nuisances and for private nuisances physical damage/ substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land and then interference with servitude's. Any clarity would be so so helpful and much appreciated.

Hi there, does anyone have a sample answer or a guide on how to answer EU March 2018 Q3 question on Direct Effect of Directives, a completely reverse to his usual question on it and nothing similar in manual, just a bit concerning as he is known to often repeat questions...

Lcork23 wrote: »

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.

Having the same issue with this too, no mention in manual of this topic in general

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Did they mention any other alternative ie a cloak room or anything?

Nope, basically just said your jacket pocket for purse keys etc, but I'll have notes with me, so dunno how I'm gonna wing that!

L.E.D wrote: »

I rang earlier and youre not allowed bring a bag into the Hall or leave it outside, I'm just wondering why? Cause obviously people that are travelling that morning will be bringing notes etc so they'll have to leave them in their coat under the desk..strange requirement!

Could pass on germs way too easy if a load of bags are thrown together

20082014 wrote: »

Hi,

My manual doesn't seem to have anything in it about the liability of children, would anyone be able to tell me is there much to this or what is needed?

I have some cases under the topic affirmative duties (Lennon, Curley v Mannion etc.) but I don't think I have enough if I had to write a paragraph on it tomorrow.

Thank you!

That's pretty much all there is. Just state it's direct liability for failure to control the kids, not vicariously liability. LRC recomended expanding to include as a form of VL in 2009. Normal neg rules apply, DoC, SoC, reasonable foreseeability etc and causation, just parents are responsible for children in thier charge, applies to teachers or anyone acting in parenta locus or however we spell that

In the case of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc was the Scope test applied for VL , or the close connection test?

And am I correct in saying the test for scope was initially adopted in Farry v Great Northern Railway Co.?

Best of luck guys, hard work is done! Have a feeling it’s gunna be a lovely paper!!

Good luck everyone.

Good luck to all today in tort !

Regarding EU Citizenship - does host Member States have to pay student fees as seen in Brown or do they not have to? I have read so many different things I have confused myself. Would love it if someone could clear it up?