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

law_struggles

Should you have talked about DoC/SoC for trampoline Q, or was it Causation?

Was the trampoline owner fully liable or was bodybuilder partially/fully liable?

Buttonbean123

Does any kind soul out there have a sample answer for the problem Q for s238 & S239 transactions that they could share please?

awsah

law_struggles wrote: »

Should you have talked about DoC/SoC for trampoline Q, or was it Causation?

Was the trampoline owner fully liable or was bodybuilder partially/fully liable?

I spoke about causation but I added a line for DOC, SOC and remoteness just incase! I said amy was fully liable as the at of terry would not constitute a novus actus interveniens as it was reasonably foreseeable that he would have done that, that might be the wrong conclusion but I hope il get marks for making the argument

[Deleted User]

Buttonbean123 wrote: »

Does any kind soul out there have a sample answer for the problem Q for s238 & S239 transactions that they could share please?

I would also really appreciate this please!

jus_me

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Exam was grand but system is a disaster. I got logged out at 12:45 and it said I submitted my exam and I o my had 4 questions done. Got in contact with LS and they said I can get back in to finish it and that was 90 minutes ago. A bit ridiculous really but she said I was added to the list so I presume this is a common problem.

Are they going to let you go back into the exam and have more time? I had the same issue with not being able to log in

awsah

AlexTG356 wrote: »

Can anyone remember if we have a clock or countdown timer built into the exam portal? Would rather not have to look over to my clock, as the eye movement might be picked up by the software.

i didnt see one, used my watch...

awsah

iana2017 wrote: »

I didn't noticed that...but the exam started at 10.00 and would have expected it to finish at 13.30...
I actually believed until the last min that they would say...now you have another/extra 30 min ...
Anyway...was ok , but have like 4.5 questions done...

my exam finished at 2, did your finish at 1?

Fe1 2020

awsah wrote: »

I spoke about causation but I added a line for DOC, SOC and remoteness just incase! I said amy was fully liable as the at of terry would not constitute a novus actus interveniens as it was reasonably foreseeable that he would have done that, that might be the wrong conclusion but I hope il get marks for making the argument

Did anyone talk about Amy's liability to Gina as a recreational visitor under Occupiers liability? I done that along with standard of care, doubtful now in hindsight

awsah

FE1Rookie wrote: »

That sounds like an awful paper. I passed in August and I would struggle to answer any more than 3 comfortably there

I thought it was a lovely paper problem questions on vicarious liability, occupiers liability, causation and medical negligence and then an essay on products, those were the 5 I did and I feel I said through them. there was an essay on intentional torts I could have used as a back up, I left out rylands and fletcher/nuisance(didn't bother trying to figure out which one the question was refrerring to) and then the law about volunterrs.

awsah

Fe1 2020 wrote: »

Did anyone talk about Amy's liability to Gina as a recreational visitor under Occupiers liability? I done that along with standard of care, doubtful now in hindsight

I don't think I brought occupiers liability into it, I just spoke about causation. Gina would be counted as a visitor though as she had permission to be there and most likely had paid.

Al1501

Deleted User wrote: »

I would also really appreciate this please!

Me too!

awsah

law987 wrote: »

I think it was vicarious liability, not employers and for another one I answered using Rylands instead of nuisance but open to correction l, can anyone confirm haha

yes i would have thought the same. there was also no question specific to covid- 2 of them mentioned the restrictions but that didn't have any bearing on the answers IMO

awsah

EAA123 wrote: »

if you log in from when the lobby opens does that mean you sit there without looking at your notes until the exam starts?

yes that's what I did

CiaranS93

jus_me wrote: »

Are they going to let you go back into the exam and have more time? I had the same issue with not being able to log in

She just said to go look at my notes and they will contact me when I can go back and finish it. I'm still waiting to hear back and they aren't answering the phones now.

law_struggles

I thought for Trampoline Q you would say owner had DoC, breached SoC, then talk about bodybuilder not being a concurrent wrongdoer cause he was trying to assist..

awsah

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Are we expected to make any sort of announcement if we need to use the bathroom during the exam?

I dont think so but i told the camera i was going just so it is recorded

CiaraND16

So nobody had to show their workspace/environment today? That’s a bit mad

law_struggles

For vicarious Q was car dealership vicariously liable for injuries to Kevin?

Junior surgeon or hospital liable re medical neg?

awsah

law_struggles wrote: »

I thought for Trampoline Q you would say owner had DoC, breached SoC, then talk about bodybuilder not being a concurrent wrongdoer cause he was trying to assist..

I would say you would get marks for that, I spoke about act, injury, second act, increased injury and how a novus actus interveniens breaks the chain of causation. I noted in my conclusion that concurrent wrongdoers may be relevant but as I have argued that terry is not at fault I did not feel the need to discuss!

bluerthanu

law_struggles wrote: »

I thought for Trampoline Q you would say owner had DoC, breached SoC, then talk about bodybuilder not being a concurrent wrongdoer cause he was trying to assist..

Hmmm, I stuck solely to causation (q asked who caused it rather than who was liable), so just factual and legal and a little on remoteness for me. Tort is often down to how well you argue and use of authority however, so marks can still be given, wouldn't worry about it, it's done now and always best to forget about answers given!

awsah

law_struggles wrote: »

For vicarious Q was car dealership vicariously liable for injuries to Kevin?

Junior surgeon or hospital liable re medical neg?

i said yes as although he broke the policies it did not affect causation. I think these questions are open to interpretation as long as you put forward a sound argument.

For medical neg I said that Jim would have to prove that no other junior doctor would have done the same and the question only referenced many. i panicked at the end and wrote something about not giving consent to that particular surgery, so he may have a claim there....

Samuma

Samuma wrote: »

For criminal, City Colleges night before notes pay particular attention to provocation and duress for gangs.
Anyone have anything else you would specifically recommend?

Also, does anyone have past exam papers? Thank you in advance.

I'll take anything anyone has basically

Lealaw

Samuma wrote: »

I'll take anything anyone has basically

It's impossible to reduce down the course, really anything could come up. The past exams seems to try to cover as much of the course as possible.

Homicide, murder, manslaughter and a defence maybe provocation, intoxication or insanity, is common.

FE1new

Lealaw wrote: »

It's impossible to reduce down the course, really anything could come up. The past exams seems to try to cover as much of the course as possible.

Homicide, murder, manslaughter and a defence maybe provocation, intoxication or insanity, is common.

There is always Sexual Offences as well. The papers seem to cover everything but thats good in a way that you only need to know the key cases. The last paper Omissions and Presumption of innocence came up as did Bail and what makes a lawful arrest. These may not come up this time.

JudeLawX

Did anyone attempt the essay Q on Volunteers and if so what did you say? Starting to worry I'll pick up no marks a I panicked when answering and did not have much case law.

[Deleted User]

I have SLP, directors duties, restriction, disqualifications, shares and transfer, corporate borrowing and statutory regulation of transaction involving directors.

Anything else that would be vital??
Obviously now short on time but feel I might need a bit more

CiaraND16

Deleted User wrote: »

I have SLP, directors duties, restriction, disqualifications, shares and transfer, corporate borrowing and statutory regulation of transaction involving directors.

Anything else that would be vital??
Obviously now short on time but feel I might need a bit more

winding up and shareholder protection, also benefits of incorp + reforms of the CA 2014

[Deleted User]

CiaraND16 wrote: »

winding up and shareholder protection, also benefits of incorp + reforms of the CA 2014

Thank you!

Shareholder protection would be focused on oppression/s212 mainly is it?

I have a few points of 2014 reforms as a back up thanks so some kind soul on here!

What would be best to focus on to narrow down winding up?

shaunadennyham

How predictable do people find company? Does he tend to ask the same general questions or is it as varied as constitutional or tort ?

Red.95

jus_me wrote: »

Are they going to let you go back into the exam and have more time? I had the same issue with not being able to log in

Do they let you back into the exam after you've had time to view the questions? It all seems very messy