FE1s2021 wrote: » I know the marking seemed to be a lot harsher for equity this sitting but was there anything unexpected on the paper? I'm conscious that there is a new examiner and just want to make sure for studying that the November paper was a similar format to previous ones.
BBall2015 wrote: » I sat equity for the first time in Nov and failed with a grade of 39. Honestly, I thought I'd passed, or if not, I'd get 47/48 and be on the border. In my opinion, the topics that came up were predictable, 4 out of 5 of the topics I predicted came up, I didn't think there were any curveballs or topics included that hadn't appeared in years and were thrown in now. Nothing seemed off balance, when I finished the exam, it felt like any other paper. Whereas when I finished Constitutional, I couldn't believe how hard of a paper it was - and I passed it! So confused on how equity was graded and what the examiner is looking for!
Fe7 wrote: » Did people who wrote Equity Last sitting throw in recent case law? I’m just curious. I didn’t want to say this because I know what it’s like to read someone passed something when you didn’t (I failed Company and Contract in Nov) – especially when you put in a lot of work. For Equity last sitting I genuinely studied notes I bought of Adverts and sample answers. Fluffed out with recent case law for each topic. Didn’t even touch a manual and scraped by with it being my highest (FYI only 57 but happy it punched above 50). I only say this since it’s a new examiner, maybe that’s the trick? I also underlined ILAC titles so it was laid out ridiculously clear. It didn’t look like an essay the way Griffiths SA’s look. Not saying the above is the way to go. I might have just gotten lucky with mark tallying. But maybe others who passed can chime what they did to help others and make some sense of what happened in Equity. I failed the exams I actually put in work so karma evened out in the end haha
Deleted User wrote: » At this point I can’t even remember - I’ve requested my script so I suppose I’ll see then is there any chance you’d be willing to share the notes you used? As far as I’m aware 57 is a great score for FE1s!
FE1Hopefully1 wrote: » I also had a few bits of recent case law I think in equity mainly the English decisions in relation to donatio mortis causa and maybe a few for the answer I did on undue influence I didn’t use ilac titles - never have as some examiners really don’t like them
Fe7 wrote: » Do you know which ones don’t like them? I have five exams coming up and would like to steer clear of their bad side so!
Fe7 wrote: » Ps for those doing Company I saw someone who quoted the ish out of Courtney got the 70s. His stuff is my bible for the next two months
SKLaw wrote: » Honestly, from experience. Courtney being quoted seems to be the way to go. The second time I sat last March, I quoted him quite often and passed
EmmaO94 wrote: » I agree, and same here. I had a Courtney quote for every one of my answers I think. Felt a bit cringe to be quoting him to himself but seems to have done the trick.
Sesh0nm0m wrote: » I put in a 2015 case for DMC can't remember with the others but in general I don't think we got much recent case law for equity
FE1Hopefully1 wrote: » Yeah think the only recent ones really were king v dubree for DMC tbh
Sesh0nm0m wrote: » Think I had a recent case for undue influence as well.. didnt have any Delaney quotes that were relevant I don't think. I did a stunning question on DMC though and still got 45. As for company I got 1% lower than I did before when I made a disaster of it and didn't quote him either time because the only quotes I had were on corp borrowing which didn't come up and winding up which I didn't answer on..
fe1fi20 wrote: » hi everyone... does anyone know what came up in the November 2020 constitution exam?
Deleted User wrote: » Paper was posted a few pages back!
DavidX90 wrote: » Any sign of the results of that survey yet or am I going to need to hand over my sort code and account number to get them?
FE1_Help wrote: » seshonmom if you spent ur time studying instead of posting as every other comment..... some passive aggressively...... or looking after ur mental health as seen seeing ur past posts you'd have.. less?
church street 94 wrote: » Ok I think we all need to take a step back and take a breath. This thread is and has been for years a support network for FE1 students; a support network in terms of sharing advice about exams, sharing materials, discussing exam qs, filling in the blanks on topics, and helping with the stress of upcoming exams. It is not a therapy room nor is it a place where we should be getting pissy at one another and for certain topics of discussion, this is not the place to lay it out in such forceful terms. We are all here for one thing, get through these exams as best we can. Yes, we are going to rant and get stressed and express our upset at results which have gone badly, particularly when we feel as though we have worked ourselves to the bone and didn't get the results we expected or wanted. But I think we need to return to the main theme of this thread, exam focus. Perhaps a pause on the anger and ranting about the Law Soc for the time being. If someone gets a useful reply with regard to any complaints sent to the Law Soc, share them if they are helpful and provide some clarity. But endless talk and expressing disgust and cursing about what has already happened is not going to help anyone in getting through exams. Let's reset and get back to providing valuable help and advice with exams as this thread has always done.
Fe7 wrote: » To those who sent me requests for the notes I'll send them Thursday morning. There are more of your messages than I was expecting so just posting a general reply here.
law1234567 wrote: » thank you!!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1c2638d40c8423fc1a2b2b1a2a01a3b9.svg)
