nmurphy1441 wrote: » What did you conclude for that question?
FE1new wrote: » 7 PQ questions on Contract and no easements or AP on Property. The mad Criminal exam as well. Jesus its been some round of exams lads.
nmurphy1441 wrote: » Was the Succession PQ very straight forward or am I just thinking that?
BBall2015 wrote: » Instead of doing the history & development of the fundamental rights, you're just focusing on human rights, proportionality, legal certainty etc? Am I understanding you correctly? I just want to narrow down the topic for me to learn! Thank you
awsah wrote: » it seems to me that the examiners are under some sort of illusion that we have it easier this year and they have decided to make the exams harder rather than giving us a break in a pandemic! AP not showing up, for what the first time ever!! the only thing that will save me in this is if that first question was on priorpratry estoppel as I had not a notion what it was but didnt have the other essays studied! Edit this to say that it just occurred to me that I jsut sat my 8th (and hopefully last) FE1 so im off to have a glass of wine on my balcony! this exams suck but we are getting through them and anyone in the middle of them, you will get there eventually! you should all be so proud of the hard work you are doing! Keep it up!
lawDani wrote: » Reading these and feeling for people that sat exams the last two days! Not a lot of confidence regarding EU tomorrow ... Just wondering if succession had its usual two questions on property this year?
FE1Hopefully1 wrote: » Yeah it seems so - even in November property was a shock with no co- ownership Seem to be making them harder since last March at least
RebeccaM90 wrote: » Does anyone know do they grade the first 5 questions or will they grade the paper and take best 5? Totally misinterpreted an entire question
FE1new wrote: » They take the best 5. I wrote 6 in my criminal in November and when I asked for my paper the highest 5 were added together.
SamWFE1 wrote: » I think it was yeah. I just briefly went over S.77 (mentioned SDM briefly but concluded that he had it). Went over S.78 requirements and concluded that they were all there. Also looked at revoking a will and that where a will is destroyed it has to be done with the intention to revoke and that this wasn't the case here. I also mentioned legal right share at the end and said that this would be available to Harvey if he wanted to although I'd say that's completely irrelevant as the question was on the validity of the will. How did you answer it?
Lawlawblahblah wrote: » Guys what was the second question Bridie and Mary on ??
SamWFE1 wrote: » Hey guys just wondering how everyone answered the FHPA question. I went down the line of saying that there was no consent under S.3 but I was a bit lost on whether the mortgage would still be valid. The bank assumed that the wife was dead and the husband signed a declaration on this so does this mean that the bank did not have constructive knowledge of the wife's consent? I said that the mortgage may still be found invalid as the bank should have sought the death certificate, kind of along with the reasoning in Somers v Weir, but I bet there's a case out there dealing with this issue. Wondering if anyone can shed light on it? Also, did anyone mention S.7? (That the non-owning spouse can pay the mortgage and stop the bank taking possession if they are willing and able to). I just mentioned this bit in passing saying that if the mortgage was found to be valid then this option was available to the wife.
nmurphy1441 wrote: » Slightly different... I can’t remember reading that Louis himself actually signed the will, it just mentioned Tom and Gerry signing it so I said it was invalid because of that. Went through the revocation and destruction and said it was not destroyed because there was no intention to revoke. Ultimately though, I said it was invalid because no mention of Louis signing and therefore died intestate and he is entitled to LRS owing to the 2010 act!
Hereforfe1 wrote: » Does anyone know the last paper adverse possession wasn't on? Because my exam grid doesn't go back that far
FE1Eire wrote: » I think that point was aimed at Somers v Weir, where the husband said the wife gave consent in the separation agreement but actually had not and the bank had a responsibility to check this, so similar to the PQ they should have checked, so no consent - that's the route I went, very much consent based and wish I had mentioned S.7 now you say it
Creg12 wrote: » No co-ownership Didn’t realise this Christ ...
Law101 wrote: » Yeah non discrimination, fundamental rights, legitimate expectation, the right to an effective remedy proportionality, and legal certainty. The decisions that came out of these helped the court in their analysis of Eu Law. I think its usually this type of question or a question on the Charter itself. however, the was these exams are going I wouldn't be surprised of he put it in again
SamWFE1 wrote: » I actually did mention that Louis didn't sign it as well but I just assumed the examiner had forgotten to put that in! I just mentioned it like the testator has to sign in the presence of the witnesses and that if he does not the will may be deemed invalid. I said it would be invalid if that was the case but concluded that if he did sign it it would be valid. Didn't mention intestacy but did mention LRS just in passing that the spouse could elect for the legal right share instead of the gift under the will as per Re: Urquhart and S.115. Would the LRS not arise out of the Succession Act though? They were married I thought and I was under the impression that same-sex marriage Succession is governed under Succession Act and it's only civil partnerships under the 2010 Act? Not my strongest area though so could be wrong.
nmurphy1441 wrote: » I did it on an estoppel license!
ruby1998 wrote: » Well thank god for family property and for me remembering the registration essay I wrote weeks ago!! Well done everyone no AP but can’t say I wasn’t happy to not answer a Q on easements lol. Final FE1 done for me but will inevitably be back on here in October panicking. See y’all at results
