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

FE1_2020_

What are people covering for Equity ?

I have the following covered but feel like its not enough:

- Trustees 'Duties'
- Charitable Trusts & Cy-Pres
- Quia timet & Mandatory Interlocutory injunctions (Mareva omitted - appeared last March)
- Estoppel
- Undue Influence
- Specific Performance
- Rectification
- Secret Trusts
- Strong v Bird
- DMC

I am considering adding in Joint accounts & presumption of advancement but not sure. I feel like the above could be enough to hopefully pull five q's from the 8 on the day.

Aoibhin511

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Oh sorry I didn't see that on the website, my bad!
I am registered and my email address is correct too so I'm in the same boat as you guys then

just shoot off an email to novemberfe1@lawsociety.ie

Lawlaw12

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Yeah, but the website says if you didn't get it the two reasons are that you're not registered or you email address is wrong. Which is not the case for for me and the previous poster, and possibly many others

Oh sorry I didn't see that on the website, my bad!
I am registered and my email address is correct too so I'm in the same boat as you guys then

Lozg

StabiloLaw wrote: »

I did this question and mentioned a number of things.

Nervous Shock of Fred - that it needed to be foreseeable and proven by a medical practitioner, and proven that it was caused by the event.

Brought in Negligence to show it was foreseeable.

Mentioned Trespass to the person and said Sally verbally assaulted Fred unknowingly, causing him emotional distress to the point where he got physically sick (Kelly Principle requirement to show a real and describable illness).

Brought in Vicarious Liability for Harrison here as he should have seen Fred was likely to believe the situation, and Sally was working in the scope of her employment. Finished off with saying that Harrison breached his duty of care towards the individuals on his set but barely touched on this.

Not sure how well I did in the particular question, but I got a high pass in Tort overall and at the time, felt this was one of my better questions.

Can I ask which topics came up in the online tort paper please?

[Deleted User]

I am so disheartened.. this whole set up is a joke.

Aoibhin511

Hiya1234 wrote: »

Can I ask what people are covering for Contract?

Offer and acceptance
Consideration (and briefly estoppel)
Formal requirements
Terms, exemption clauses and consumer protection
Mistake and missrepresentation
Undue influence and Duress
void and illegal contracts
Discharge
Remedies

also gonna have capacity and privity in my back pocket if I have time to cover them.

I got stung by not covering enough in contract before, so perhaps I'm being overly cautious, if you were going to leave anything from that list out capacity, privity, formal requirements and illegal/void contracts are probably the safest ones to ignore/skim

Hiya1234

Can I ask what people are covering for Contract?

Lawwww2020

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

No, but it's barely been an hour, I wont get mad at them just yet

Haha thanks! I’ve emailed too so hopefully we will get sorted out soon

SKLaw

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Yep I emailed them with screenshots

I did the same especially because mine has been approved even before 15 October and my email with them is correct

Aoibhin511

Lawwww2020 wrote: »

Thank you! Have they got back to you on it? I received the email from last week so not sure what’s wrong!

No, but it's barely been an hour, I wont get mad at them just yet

Aoibhin511

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Yes a lot of us didn't get the email for some reason, the LS are aware of this
They've updated the website now with exam info and apparently it's the same as the email was

Yeah, but the website says if you didn't get it the two reasons are that you're not registered or you email address is wrong. Which is not the case for for me and the previous poster, and possibly many others

Lawwww2020

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Yes a lot of us didn't get the email for some reason, the LS are aware of this
They've updated the website now with exam info and apparently it's the same as the email was

Thanks for this! Yeah not too sure why I haven’t received it as I’m approved and accurately recorded on the system...

Lawwww2020

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Yep I emailed them with screenshots

Thank you! Have they got back to you on it? I received the email from last week so not sure what’s wrong!

StabiloLaw

Sunflowers8 wrote: »

To those who sat the online Tort exam in August or have seen the paper:

What topic(s) did you discuss for Q7 (the film set bank robbery)?

I did this question and mentioned a number of things.

Nervous Shock of Fred - that it needed to be foreseeable and proven by a medical practitioner, and proven that it was caused by the event.

Brought in Negligence to show it was foreseeable.

Mentioned Trespass to the person and said Sally verbally assaulted Fred unknowingly, causing him emotional distress to the point where he got physically sick (Kelly Principle requirement to show a real and describable illness).

Brought in Vicarious Liability for Harrison here as he should have seen Fred was likely to believe the situation, and Sally was working in the scope of her employment. Finished off with saying that Harrison breached his duty of care towards the individuals on his set but barely touched on this.

Not sure how well I did in the particular question, but I got a high pass in Tort overall and at the time, felt this was one of my better questions.

Lawlaw12

Lawwww2020 wrote: »

My application has been approved and my email is accurately recorded on my Law Society account but I didn't get the email from last night. Is anyone else having this issue too?

Thanks!

Yes a lot of us didn't get the email for some reason, the LS are aware of this
They've updated the website now with exam info and apparently it's the same as the email was

Aoibhin511

Lawwww2020 wrote: »

My application has been approved and my email is accurately recorded on my Law Society account but I didn't get the email from last night. Is anyone else having this issue too?

Thanks!

Yep I emailed them with screenshots

Lawwww2020

My application has been approved and my email is accurately recorded on my Law Society account but I didn't get the email from last night. Is anyone else having this issue too?

Thanks!

JayFE1

Right, typing is definitely going to slow some of us down. Over a three hour period, that could equate to what? One page? Two pages? More? That could be 4 cases, it could be 8 cases. It might very well be the difference between passing and failing. I can see this coming a mile off but what if we hit mid 40s. Obviously, we would fail the exam but surely all things being equal in a traditional pen ‘n paper exam we would have passed. Imagine getting a 47% through the door from say handing up half a fifth question due to being slowed down the previous 4 questions. You’d like to think this will be considered when marking or IMO the duration of the exam should be extended to recognise this.

Just on a side note but surely we’d be allowed to have a cup of coffee on the table? It doesn’t say but “comfort of your house”, etc.

rickmatt

Anyone the Constitutional Law March 2020 exam paper?

lsheehaneire

SOP Doctrine
Function of the Legislative-delegated legislation
Function of the Executive (sovereignty, cabinet confidentiality, referendums)
Role of the Judiciary -independence and non justiciability

fe1student2803

What exactly should I be covering for Seperation of Powers for Constitutional?

laworlawww

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Apolgies if this has been answered but I have been one (of many I'm sure) who was not lucky enough to receive an email from our beloved Law Society.

Has there been any infomation given as to the length of time of the exam? Will it still be the standard 3 hours or will they give us additional time seeing as it appears we will have to tab back and forward to read the exam questions etc?

This information was not in the email unfortunately, no details as to timing

Jeremiah25

Apologies if this has been answered but I have been one (of many I'm sure) who was not lucky enough to receive an email from our beloved Law Society.

Has there been any infomation given as to the length of time of the exam? Will it still be the standard 3 hours or will they give us additional time seeing as it appears we will have to tab back and forward to read the exam questions etc?

FE1new

Hi All

The LS has updated the website with the information in the email people received. Nothing different from the email but if people who didn't receive it want to check its up there now.

lawgirl23

SKLaw wrote: »

I got through to her this morning. I asked about not getting the email and she said that there's quite a few of us who hasn't gotten the email and there must be a fault in their mailing system that she didn't know yet and hoped that she will know more this afternoon. She also said that the info sent out in the email will go up on the LS website today

I got through and she said the same to me. She also offered to read out the contents of the email to me since I didn’t get the email!

SKLaw

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Ok, thanks
Nothing there yet unfortunately

no problem.
Might be a bit of a wait if there will be info up on the website but we'll see I suppose

Aoibhin511

SKLaw wrote: »

I got through to her this morning. I asked about not getting the email and she said that there's quite a few of us who hasn't gotten the email and there must be a fault in their mailing system that she didn't know yet and hoped that she will know more this afternoon. She also said that the info sent out in the email will go up on the LS website today

Ok, thanks
Nothing there yet unfortunately

SKLaw

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Did anyone actually get through to Shirley Foley on that number? The voicemail greeting I got says the number is for Cara Somebodyorother

I got through to her this morning. I asked about not getting the email and she said that there's quite a few of us who hasn't gotten the email and there must be a fault in their mailing system that she didn't know yet and hoped that she will know more this afternoon. She also said that the info sent out in the email will go up on the LS website today

Aoibhin511

Did anyone actually get through to Shirley Foley on that number? The voicemail greeting I got says the number is for Cara Somebodyorother

BugsySiegel

IgoPAP wrote: »

Saying you don't want to type for the exam because you're a slow typer is the same as arguing that you can't do a written exam because you're a messy writer.

Sorry, but unless you've got some legitimate medical reason, it's a terrible excuse. Most people type more than they write these days.

Hey, if you have messy writing it doesn't necessarily mean you are slow at writing. You may be able to get a lot down in poor handwriting. The concern re typing speed is that candidates won't be able to type enough to answer the questions or reflect their knowledge in the area. There's an obvious distinction between the two and it's a valid concern for anyone who hasn't done much typing.