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

Coopie

Apple Mac laptop
Is anyone else using a Mac OS X Yosemite laptop?

I am just wondering cos in the technical requirements it says it be updated to 10.11+ but the Yosemite is only on Version 10.10.5?

You might let me know if you have experienced any problems.

Thanks.

JayFE1

nicolesd wrote: »

are people learning interlocutory injunctions themselves or is that likely to come up?

whats the most important cases to to for QT injunctions?

really starting to panic now!!!

Szabo v Esat Digifone for Quia Timet. Geoghegan J has a 5 or 7 point set of principles. If QT comes up it can and will be solved on that case e.g. as one example someone will make scientific claims probably be a PHD student or summat and you’ll cross reference it back considering the importance the justice placed on expert evidence.

QT is an interlocutory injunction so there’s no distinction. Interlocutory itself means lasting until trial and may be prohibitory or mandatory by nature. QT is the classic prohibitory interlocutory injunction. It might be sought where for example a footballer / celebrity was aware of an article going to print containing defamatory remarks and he / she wished to stop it.

Don’t panic pal, stay calm, break it down, read it over. You’ll hit it for 6 tomorrow!!

ruby1998

FE1Nov20 wrote: »

what are people's thoughts on secret trusts showing tomorrow?

Hoping they don't cuz I didn't cover it

JayFE1

A’right, I was in the motor a while back listening to Q102 and there was something on the news about a case on journalistic privilege. I meant to check it out later but I forget and didn’t find anything today on the internet.

I don’t know if it was SC or just HC but it’s fresh, recent and I want it for Wednesday HaHa! Does anyone else know TF what I’m going on about? A case name or a link would be most appreciated. We’re talking mid August - late September and it’s about disclosing sources!

JayFE1

Just flashed across my mind but if anyone is doing Marevas for tomorrow then jot this down for your introduction or conclusion for bonus marks for showing off - The Lord Justice Donaldson in Bank Mellat v Nikpour [1985] described the Mareva as “one of the laws two nuclear weapons”. The other is an AP Order!

Lawlaw12

JayFE1 wrote: »

A’right, I was in the motor a while back listening to Q102 and there was something on the news about a case on journalistic privilege. I meant to check it out later but I forget and didn’t find anything today on the internet.

I don’t know if it was SC or just HC but it’s fresh, recent and I want it for Wednesday HaHa! Does anyone else know TF what I’m going on about? A case name or a link would be most appreciated. We’re talking mid August - late September and it’s about disclosing sources!

Corcoran (t/a The Democrat) v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Sept 2020)

Good case on journalistic sources

CoconutHeadMia

Constitutional
Personal rights are huge so wont be able to cover everything - anything in particular worth focusing on?
I have right to life, livelihood, privacy, good name and fair procedures

JayFE1

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Corcoran (t/a The Democrat) v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Sept 2020)

Good case on journalistic sources

An interesting case alright! Great stuff! Cheers LawLaw!

LeagleEagle747

For equity decided to go with the 3 certainties, DMC, Injunctions, charitable purpose trusts, cy-pres, non-charitable purpose trusts, and torn between trustees duties, undue influence and specific performance, but at this rate just too tired to care anymore

Costello95

Anyone have short notes on offer and acceptance? Panicking now because I have constitutional as well. Thanks

RaffRiff01

Hi all, any predictions on essay contracts??

fe12020oct

LeagleEagle747 wrote: »

For equity decided to go with the 3 certainties, DMC, Injunctions, charitable purpose trusts, cy-pres, non-charitable purpose trusts, and torn between trustees duties, undue influence and specific performance, but at this rate just too tired to care anymore

I’m doing the same!! Looking at specific performance now, trustees is just too long to learn tonight

T.Chunter164

baloo21 wrote: »

For QT:

AG(Boswell) v Rathmines
Szabo v ESAT

Don't forget JRM Sports Limited v FAI 2007 IEHC 67 for QT injunctions! regarding adequacy of damages - Clarke J is saying that there are certain types of disputes where the considerations of parties cannot be converted into money; this can be extended to the environmental scenarios

Lawlaw12

CoconutHeadMia wrote: »

Constitutional
Personal rights are huge so wont be able to cover everything - anything in particular worth focusing on?
I have right to life, livelihood, privacy, good name and fair procedures

Do you have property rights?
and maybe unenumerated rights doctrine

channing90

Any recent constitutional cases that are a must for any topic ? What’s Gemma o doherty case fall under for example ?

loosehead1973

Hi does anyone know the test for strength of case in Mareva Injunctions.
TIA

loosehead1973

Check out Re Mariette... squash courts for Erin School considered charitable under education.

quote="fe12020oct;115237090"]equity

in a charitable trust q - would promotion of sport in primary schools be considered a valid charitable gift? i know promotion of sport cant be a valid charitable gift but could you extend it to education and say it could be if considered in physical education in the primary schools??[/quote]

loosehead1973

loosehead1973 wrote: »

Check out Re Mariette... squash courts for Erin School considered charitable under education.

quote="fe12020oct;115237090"]equity

in a charitable trust q - would promotion of sport in primary schools be considered a valid charitable gift? i know promotion of sport cant be a valid charitable gift but could you extend it to education and say it could be if considered in physical education in the primary schools??

[/quote]

loosehead1973

That should read Eton School

loosehead1973 wrote: »

[/quote]

Lawlaw12

channing90 wrote: »

Any recent constitutional cases that are a must for any topic ? What’s Gemma o doherty case fall under for example ?

I'm also unsure what the Gemma O'D case falls under??
I think it's quite broad as she made a load of arguments, I'll probably leave it out

legallyginger

Contract:
capacity of a minor law reform question: Griffith Samples say abolition of necessaries was recommended but can't find this in the report (unless I missed it)
Would anyone know is this so and what was said about it?

Lelila

nicolesd wrote: »

Anyone have any advice in answering charitable q which includes the Cypres doctrine? how to spot if she wants us to talk about cypres?

also in regard to cypres only applying to a valid charitable trust which fails can anyone explain why the valid charitable trust initially fails? (feel really stupid asking this but i want to be clear)

I failed equity the first time just because I forgot to mention Cy-pres. So if I were you, I'd mention it anyway, whatever the situation is!

SKLaw

legallyginger wrote: »

Contract:
capacity of a minor law reform question: Griffith Samples say abolition of necessaries was recommended but can't find this in the report (unless I missed it)
Would anyone know is this so and what was said about it?

Hey

that's correct. I found this on the report

"The Commission recommended that the category of “necessaries” should be abolished, and replaced by “necessities” these “necessities” should be limited to items essential to maintain a minimum standard of living. In deciding what are, and what are not, “necessities”, the Court should have regard to the status, social position, means or state of supply of the minor in question. Failing the abolition of necessaries, the Commission considered that the concept should be amended in order to render it more appropriate to modern trading conditions."

bluerthanu

fe12020oct wrote: »

I’m doing the same!! Looking at specific performance now, trustees is just too long to learn tonight

DM me if either of ye need any condensed notes for SP/UI, these exams are so chronic but lots of help on this discussion board if ye need it with extra topics!

legallyginger

SKLaw wrote: »

Hey that's correct. I found this on the report

"The Commission recommended that the category of “necessaries” should be abolished, and replaced by “necessities” these “necessities” should be limited to items essential to maintain a minimum standard of living. In deciding what are, and what are not, “necessities”, the Court should have regard to the status, social position, means or state of supply of the minor in question. Failing the abolition of necessaries, the Commission considered that the concept should be amended in order to render it more appropriate to modern trading conditions."

Thanks so much! Don't know how I missed it possibly the endless reading:(

SKLaw

legallyginger wrote: »

Thanks so much! Don't know how I missed it possibly the endless reading:(

No worries. I feel you! I feel like I'm getting cross eyed sometimes from the endless reading

Healyjhow

Hey just wondering if anyone could clarify if a QTI comes up tomorrow do you talk about campus oil for interlocutory injunction and then szabo decision/ the importance of subjective evidence ?

FE1_2020_

Healyjhow wrote: »

Hey just wondering if anyone could clarify if a QTI comes up tomorrow do you talk about campus oil for interlocutory injunction and then szabo decision/ the importance of subjective evidence ?

I'm at loss with this whole campus oil debacle, I was hoping that we first utilize the test to prove whether or not there was a substantial risk of danger that was imminent and if this was not the case then the QT would be refused. If this test was proved then we would apply the campus oil principles.

I just cant get my head around it and my griffith manual just heavily leans with Szabo test and just says Geoghegan J says there not relevant and then says however they were applied in the RTE case previously.

Fedone

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I'm at loss with this whole campus oil debacle, I was hoping that we first utilize the test to prove whether or not there was a substantial risk of danger that was imminent and if this was not the case then the QT would be refused. If this test was proved then we would apply the campus oil principles.

I just cant get my head around it and my griffith manual just heavily leans with Szabo test and just says Geoghegan J says there not relevant and then says however they were applied in the RTE case previously.

From my understanding the difference in the RTE case was that there was no dispute as to whether the conduct in question was actually causing damage so campus oil was used there instead of szabo.

bluerthanu

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I'm at loss with this whole campus oil debacle, I was hoping that we first utilize the test to prove whether or not there was a substantial risk of danger that was imminent and if this was not the case then the QT would be refused. If this test was proved then we would apply the campus oil principles.

I just cant get my head around it and my griffith manual just heavily leans with Szabo test and just says Geoghegan J says there not relevant and then says however they were applied in the RTE case previously.

The shortest answer to this I think is that you can do both (1) just substantial risk of danger from Szabo, focussing on evidence etc (followed in Murphy v. Irish Water, albeit O’Regan J still referenced Campus Oil), and (2) Campus Oil that notes there is likely a higher standard arising from Szabo (Gurragh v. Bord na gCon and National Irish Bank v. RTE literally just applied Campus Oil).

You can do both approaches by making a good case for doing so based solely on the contradictory judgment of Geoghegan J in Szabo: (1) he referenced Spry’s Equity that there is no different in the tests for quia timet and a normal interlocutory, (2) he nevertheless found it distasteful to apply the terminology of the ‘balance of convenience’ where it affected children (Kirwan’s injunctions textbook says this could principally be the reason why Geoghegan J didn’t apply Campus Oil), and (3) Geoghegan J went on to apply Campus Oil just in case! Given it’s a problem question you wouldn’t get much out of just applying Szabo too it has to be remembered really.

Notwithstanding all the above too, it’s worth pointing out there’s been no Supreme Court judgment here (Szabo was the High Court), so realistically it would be incumbent (and very responsable) on a careful solicitor to advise their client that a court could adopt either just Szabo or Campus Oil. Generally, however, the QT problem questions make reference to some poor evidence for the fear (as another poster pointed out), so I think you’d have to make reference to Geoghegan J’s comments about the witnesses and the higher evidentiary standard required.

This is what I’ll be doing if it comes up anyway, hope it works!