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

FE1new · 10-11-2020 03:11PM

law987 wrote: »

Flip I missed the politics part of that Q completely so ahaha, what did it say

It was 100,000 for the promotion of legislation for off the pitch conduction, treatment of referees.... or something like that

10-11-2020 03:11PM

fe12020oct wrote: »

I said it was still valid as per mills v shields & kelly where they applied Wilkes v allington !! Could be so wrong though

I said mills v shields but forgot Wilkes. Basically said she was good to go too though

Lozg · 10-11-2020 03:13PM

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

What were people's opinion in regards to the DMC question on Jane assisting Betty with her suicide ? I mentioned the Agnew Belfast Banking Case and followed up that suicide is no longer a criminal offence in Ireland. Is a DMC still valid if the person claiming it actually assisted with the suicide ?

That exact question actually came up in a paper in recent years. I said the same using the Agnew case and Mills v Shields. I said that Jane’s claim wouldn’t be affected by the suicide because she was not the person who assisted in it (Mary was). If Jane has been the person to assist Betty, the outcome could be different

EmmaO94 · 10-11-2020 03:14PM

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

What were people's opinion in regards to the DMC question on Jane assisting Betty with her suicide ? I mentioned the Agnew Belfast Banking Case and followed up that suicide is no longer a criminal offence in Ireland. Is a DMC still valid if the person claiming it actually assisted with the suicide ?

Yeah I said the law was a bit unclear here, using Agnew & Dudman but then contrasted with the decriminalisation of suicide and Mills v Sheilds!
Didn't spot the assisted suicide element as someone else mentioned here but hopefully enough to get over the line!!

FE1_2020_ · 10-11-2020 03:16PM

AA247 wrote: »

It was Mary that helped her commit suicide. Assisted suicide is still a criminal offence as far as I’m aware but it was Mary not Jane so I went with it was all good ... but not 100%

I knew there was a further issue to be teased out there, luckily I just didn't elaborate on the assistance part so not sure if I will loose marks as you said it was Mary anyway who actually assisted with the suicide. Obviously more mars will be given for those who teased that part out and made that distinction. But overall the key issue is it still was a valid DMC in favor of Jane.

Thanks for clarifying that it was Mary.

keelfe1s · 10-11-2020 03:17PM

ruby1998 wrote: »

So confused what to do for this because it was 101 and 102 in August then 102 and mergers came up in August online, my notes are **** for 106 and I haven't done state aid very well

Gosh I haven’t time to cover anymore! Have 101&102 done - but have a funny feeling they won’t appear this time around!

Spreece · 10-11-2020 03:41PM

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I knew there was a further issue to be teased out there, luckily I just didn't elaborate on the assistance part so not sure if I will loose marks as you said it was Mary anyway who actually assisted with the suicide. Obviously more mars will be given for those who teased that part out and made that distinction. But overall the key issue is it still was a valid DMC in favor of Jane.

Thanks for clarifying that it was Mary.

Not sure it was. Didn't the box remain in Betty's house among Betty's belongings?

Fedone · 10-11-2020 03:42PM

Spreece wrote: »

Not sure it was. Didn't the box remain in Betty's house among Betty's belongings?

Sen v headley case where only the key was handed over was held sufficient parting with dominion

nicolesd · 10-11-2020 04:14PM

We're the charitable trusts invalid due to pure sport or what did people say? I ran out of time and only got some cases down for objects hoping I manage a pass did the rest OKish qs

FE1new · 10-11-2020 04:25PM

nicolesd wrote: »

We're the charitable trusts invalid due to pure sport or what did people say? I ran out of time and only got some cases down for objects hoping I manage a pass did the rest OKish qs

I said first one would fail for purely sport under benefit if community but as it was up to executor what to do if it was given for education as in physical activity facilities it would pass

Second would fail as it is promotion of sport and there was also a question of public benefit.

Third would fail as its political.

Not sure if any of that is right by the way. I really didn't want sports.

bozzer198 · 10-11-2020 04:44PM

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

What were people's opinion in regards to the DMC question on Jane assisting Betty with her suicide ? I mentioned the Agnew Belfast Banking Case and followed up that suicide is no longer a criminal offence in Ireland. Is a DMC still valid if the person claiming it actually assisted with the suicide ?

Mills v shield.. then say still ok for a valid dmc provided that the person that assisted in the suicide did not benefit from it for public policy reasons, from the facts it was mary who assisted not Jane so its still valid

ruby1998 · 10-11-2020 04:54PM

FE1new wrote: »

I said first one would fail for purely sport under benefit if community but as it was up to executor what to do if it was given for education as in physical activity facilities it would pass

Second would fail as it is promotion of sport and there was also a question of public benefit.

Third would fail as its political.

Not sure if any of that is right by the way. I really didn't want sports.

I said same except said 1st one could be charitable under s. 3.11 a/b benefit to locality and the case of Shillington v Portadown where there was a gift to some urban council to provide for some form of recreation for residents of something like that.

shaunadennyham · 10-11-2020 04:55PM

Also important to note that even if someone dies of suicide the dmc is still valid if death from another cause is contemplated...also unclear if it was assisted or not but not relevant either way

T.Chunter164 · 10-11-2020 05:08PM

ruby1998 wrote: »

I said same except said 1st one could be charitable under s. 3.11 a/b benefit to locality and the case of Shillington v Portadown where there was a gift to some urban council to provide for some form of recreation for residents of something like that.

Wasn’t there a case where if the reform is directly linked to the aims of trusts it allowed? In retaliation to the amnesty decision

FE1_2020_ · 10-11-2020 05:17PM

FE1new wrote: »

I said first one would fail for purely sport under benefit if community but as it was up to executor what to do if it was given for education as in physical activity facilities it would pass

Second would fail as it is promotion of sport and there was also a question of public benefit.

Third would fail as its political.

Not sure if any of that is right by the way. I really didn't want sports.

I argued in favor that both bequests for sport would qualify as charitable status. For the first one I mentioned that Delany suggested that trusts for sport would be likely be upheld in this jurisdiction if there were linked with some form of recreational facilities, I then argued that the executor should ensure not to limit or restrict any particular class of persons who may benefit from these facilities in accordance with section 3(8) in order to satisfy the public benefit requirement and said that this would also aid in the community wellbeing under section 3(11).

For the second, I mentioned that the sum of monies directed towards the provision of sports ground would likely be held a charitable as it would satisfy 3(11) in terms of development of rural community and that again brought in Delany's comments as stated above. I also did mention then if it were to fail under this category that it may be possibly afforded charitable status under the second for the advancement of education and citing Magee v AG where the court said "education simply requires something that contributes to the betterment of people, even if not in the classroom setting' and then cited physcial education etc.

ruby1998 · 10-11-2020 05:18PM

T.Chunter164 wrote: »

Wasn’t there a case where if the reform is directly linked to the aims of trusts it allowed? In retaliation to the amnesty decision

No clue tbh, potentially! Just used amnesty for the political purpose.

Jenosul · 10-11-2020 05:54PM

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I argued in favor that both bequests for sport would qualify as charitable status. For the first one I mentioned that Delany suggested that trusts for sport would be likely be upheld in this jurisdiction if there were linked with some form of recreational facilities, I then argued that the executor should ensure not to limit or restrict any particular class of persons who may benefit from these facilities in accordance with section 3(8) in order to satisfy the public benefit requirement and said that this would also aid in the community wellbeing under section 3(11).

For the second, I mentioned that the sum of monies directed towards the provision of sports ground would likely be held a charitable as it would satisfy 3(11) in terms of development of rural community and that again brought in Delany's comments as stated above. I also did mention then if it were to fail under this category that it may be possibly afforded charitable status under the second for the advancement of education and citing Magee v AG where the court said "education simply requires something that contributes to the betterment of people, even if not in the classroom setting' and then cited physcial education etc.

I also said it would benefit the community. I hope I am right! I mentioned coughlan case and said that it would help the rural community. I am worried now I am wrong.

JayFE1 · 10-11-2020 05:59PM

I know it’s a bit late in the day but this has peaked my interest. In Simpson v Gov of Mountjoy, he got 7.5k for having to slop out while in the joy however the case was decided along the lines of privacy. Contrast that with State (Richardson) v Gov of Mountjoy where it was held that such a practice in prison would breach ones right to bodily integrity.

I haven’t time to read judgments in full but maybe someone else has wondered this and knows why? Surely, bodily integrity is the strongest Art 40.3 right especially when compared with privacy. Anybody?

Fe1new4 · 10-11-2020 06:01PM

JayFE1 wrote: »

I know it’s a bit late in the day but this has peaked my interest. In Simpson v Gov of Mountjoy, he got 7.5k for having to slop out while in the joy however the case was decided along the lines of privacy. Contrast that with State (Richardson) v Gov of Mountjoy where it was held that such a practice in prison would breach ones right to bodily integrity.

I haven’t time to read judgments in full but maybe someone else has wondered this and knows why? Surely, bodily integrity is the strongest Art 40.3 right especially when compared with privacy. Anybody?

From my understanding Simpson was decided that way because he had a cell-mate therefore in cell sanitation without a privacy screen with him there too was why it’s a breach of privacy. That’s my take anyway

FE1_2020_ · 10-11-2020 06:08PM

Jenosul wrote: »

I also said it would benefit the community. I hope I am right! I mentioned coughlan case and said that it would help the rural community. I am worried now I am wrong.

I mentioned that case as well and stated the court said 'where there is exclusivity in terms of those who benefit from the trust that in of itself is an indication that it is less likely to be charitable and the more particular the benefit the less likely it is to attain charitable status'.

Jeremiah25 · 10-11-2020 06:08PM

Fe1new4 wrote: »

From my understanding Simpson was decided that way because he had a cell-mate therefore in cell sanitation without a privacy screen with him there too was why it’s a breach of privacy. That’s my take anyway

+1. He was entitled to have a cell to himself but, because of overcrowding, he ended up sharing a cell.

Lawlaw12 · 10-11-2020 06:51PM

Constitutional
Does anyone know if the Ellis case has been asked since it was decided?

Jeremiah25 · 10-11-2020 06:57PM

Lawlaw12 wrote: »

Constitutional
Does anyone know if the Ellis case has been asked since it was decided?

The firearms case? I don't believe it has no.

AnnabelleK · 10-11-2020 07:07PM

DUMSURFER wrote: »

For a question on auctions "without reserve" that went like this:

"Aoife bids €200 for a Waterford crystal chandelier owned by Tom. Although the chandelier is advertised as “without reserve” it is withdrawn from the auction when hers is the only bid. Kelly, the auctioneer, is acting on Tom’s instructions. Two years later, Aoife reads that the chandelier has been sold for €40,000. She wishes to sue Tom for breach of contract"

The Griffith Sample Answers came to this conclusion:

"It appears that Aoife was relying on an advertisement in relation to the chandelier and therefore this is merely an invitation to treat, she made an offer by bidding but there was no acceptance by the auctioneer or by Tom and accordingly she cannot sue for breach of contract as she does not have a contract in the first place."

I'm sure this is wrong and an action can be brought against the auctioneer as its a unilateral offer to the highest bidder. But could someone put my mind at ease or perhaps enlighten me before it's too late!

That’s definitely wrong.
In the case of Warlow v Harrison (1859) – auction was stated to be without reserve and was Entitled to sue the auctioneer for damages on account of the fact that it was stated that the auction was without reserve and this was therefore a breach of contract.

Another case on without reserve is Tully v Irish Land Commission (1961) -Kenny J held that after using the phrase “without reserve,” commencing the auction meant the auctioneer had made a unilateral offer to all of the bidders present to sell to the highest bona fide bidder.

Jeremiah25 · 10-11-2020 07:12PM

For anyone sitting Cons. tomorrow, the examiner mentioned a number of cases in his "constitutional law 2019 update" earlier in the year which could be worth knowing:

Mohan vs. Ireland
Zalewski
P vs. Judges of the Circuit Court (Gross indecency case)
Kerins & O'Brien (Q on Kerins in March)
Shatter vs Guerin (Case note Q in March)
McKelvey vs. Ianroid Eireann
Rowland vs. An Post
Finnegan vs. Superintendent of Tallaght Station
DPP vs. CC
Simpson vs. Gov of Mountjoy

Good luck all

JayFE1 · 10-11-2020 07:33PM

@FE1New and Jeremiah. That’s bang on the money. Cheers!

I’ve been told as well that in Mulligan v Gov of Cloverhill, MacMenamin J stated the “doubling up” in such a situation is what triggers privacy. Bodily integrity is single cell if that practice goes on. I’ll just leave it here incase anyone wants it for their privacy / bodily integrity notes.

Hamerzan Sickles · 10-11-2020 07:36PM

What are people cramming for Constitutional and cutting for Constitutional? I'm rolling the dice on independence of the judiciary, cabinet confidentiality and international relations for SOP. Covering Trial In Due Course of Law also. Then focusing on Referenda, AG/Pres/Interpretation/Natural Law, Freedom of Expression, Association, Assembly, Equality, Religion, Fair Procedures (Duty To Give Reasons), Right To Life of The Born and Refusal of Medical Treatment.

Will that be enough?

Jeremiah25 · 10-11-2020 07:42PM

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

What are people cramming for Constitutional and cutting for Constitutional? I'm rolling the dice on independence of the judiciary, cabinet confidentiality and international relations for SOP. Covering Trial In Due Course of Law also. Then focusing on Referenda, AG/Pres/Interpretation/Natural Law, Freedom of Expression, Association, Assembly, Equality, Religion, Fair Procedures (Duty To Give Reasons), Right To Life of The Born and Refusal of Medical Treatment.

Will that be enough?

Looks good! Would include liberty also if you can, topical!

Hamerzan Sickles · 10-11-2020 07:44PM

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

Looks good! Would include liberty also if you can, topical!

Thanks. There's no way I have the mental fortitude to take Liberty on this evening, although I have that infectious diseases case just in case there's a Covid case on free expression or something.

Twinings2016 · 10-11-2020 07:48PM

Does anyone have a summary of the Damache case???

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

Comments