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!) No trading

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

nmurphy1441

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

I did!

I did to a certain extent... I think it was more geared at the causation aspect and whether it was foreseeable and things like that! I did mention economic loss and caparo case and wildgust case but it was my worst answer out of the 5 for sure

Fe1user5555

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I did to a certain extent... I think it was more geared at the causation aspect and whether it was foreseeable and things like that! I did mention economic loss and caparo case and wildgust case but it was my worst answer out of the 5 for sure

Same but I’ve heard the examiner is nice about different interpretations as long as you’ve backed your points up!

SS_98

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

I did!

Ah relief that is thank you!

EmmaO94

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

Same but I’ve heard the examiner is nice about different interpretations as long as you’ve backed your points up!

Huge if true!! Haha really hoping this applies to me *fingers crossed*

T.Chunter164

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I think anyway in no order... defamation, employers, economic loss/causation, OL and PN/doctrine of informed consent! Open to correction though!

See, I think you are right, I answered in the context of medical negligence as a whole, but the issue is that Katherine didn’t have complications after- which is what makes me think I should have focused more on doctrine of informed consent & battery.... ah well.

FE12020Law

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

Same but I’ve heard the examiner is nice about different interpretations as long as you’ve backed your points up!

Please tell me this is true? I literally awnsered that question on ordinary negligence/a small bit of caustaion. I only mentioned econonomic loss in passing but said because shares are personal property under the companies act it was still technically damage to property....I feel sick after realizing it was pure economic loss...devastated

EmmaO94

T.Chunter164 wrote: »

See, I think you are right, I answered in the context of medical negligence as a whole, but the issue is that Katherine didn’t have complications after- which is what makes me think I should have focused more on doctrine of informed consent & battery.... ah well.

That's exactly why I decided on battery - like if it'd said Katherine was paralysed or whatever after then I'd have been clear in was prof neg but in the absence of that, I couldn't really link in the q with the case law on prof neg?

Fe1user5555

FE12020Law wrote: »

Please tell me this is true? I literally awnsered that question on ordinary negligence/a small bit of caustaion. I only mentioned econonomic loss in passing but said because shares are personal property under the companies act it was still technically damage to property....I feel sick after realizing it was pure economic loss...devastated

I’ve heard it from multiple people! As long as you had 4 decent answers and then a 5th one with a bit of a shot in the dark I’m sure you’ll be completely fine

Mc96

EmmaO94 wrote: »

That's exactly why I decided on battery - like if it'd said Katherine was paralysed or whatever after then I'd have been clear in was prof neg but in the absence of that, I couldn't really link in the q with the case law on prof neg?

Ya I think it could be either, lets just hope he accepts both if backed up well enough!

FE12020Law

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

I’ve heard it from multiple people! As long as you had 4 decent answers and then a 5th one with a bit of a shot in the dark I’m sure you’ll be completely fine

I pretty much had three very good answers, one alright one but the ecnomic loss one i defo messed up very bad. So so sickened with myself. 6 weeks of not knowing now.

Fedone

FE12020Law wrote: »

Please tell me this is true? I literally awnsered that question on ordinary negligence/a small bit of caustaion. I only mentioned econonomic loss in passing but said because shares are personal property under the companies act it was still technically damage to property....I feel sick after realizing it was pure economic loss...devastated

In my tort exam I waffled on in a PQ about duty of care principles and a small bit of nuisance which the q was more directed towards and i thought it was my worst answer, turned out to get 13/20, I think if you’re showing knowledge of topics he will give you marks where he can!

nmurphy1441

EmmaO94 wrote: »

That's exactly why I decided on battery - like if it'd said Katherine was paralysed or whatever after then I'd have been clear in was prof neg but in the absence of that, I couldn't really link in the q with the case law on prof neg?

I get you! I used walsh, geoghegan, Montgomery (Uk) and two more I can’t remember now. Reasonable patient is preferred as the objective and subjective nature or the test! Don’t go down the line of Dunne at all!

EmmaO94

Such a relief to hear the marker is somewhat decent, thanks guys!

I guess when you're in the exam and stressing it's easy to get mixed up between two overlapping issues so hopefully won't be penalised for that, wouldn't really be fair to imo!

EmmaO94

Did anyone else kind of struggle with the nuisance essay in that they had fa for public nuisance?! I just had one case haha but LOADS for private, hoping it's okay. Lecturer had said not to focus on public hehe

keelfe1s

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Did anyone else kind of struggle with the nuisance essay in that they had fa for public nuisance?! I just had one case haha but LOADS for private, hoping it's okay. Lecturer had said not to focus on public hehe

I’d one case on public too! I screwed that exam up so much!

jus_me

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Such a relief to hear the marker is somewhat decent, thanks guys!

I guess when you're in the exam and stressing it's easy to get mixed up between two overlapping issues so hopefully won't be penalised for that, wouldn't really be fair to imo!

I answers 4.5 average in nov and got 62! He’s pretty fair !

nmurphy1441

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Did anyone else kind of struggle with the nuisance essay in that they had fa for public nuisance?! I just had one case haha but LOADS for private, hoping it's okay. Lecturer had said not to focus on public hehe

I basically said two for public nuisance! Glencar and UCC v ESB and don’t even think they’re a public nuisance, I just threw them in lol

lawgrad49

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Such a relief to hear the marker is somewhat decent, thanks guys!

I guess when you're in the exam and stressing it's easy to get mixed up between two overlapping issues so hopefully won't be penalised for that, wouldn't really be fair to imo!

Yeah he is deffo a decent marker and rewards different interpretations if you've backed it up with case law!

I remember after the Tort exam in August there were about 3/4 different interpretations on one question on this forum, I was convinced I got the answer "wrong" as my answer didn't hit any of the obvious points...but it wasn't an issue as I passed the exam with 7 marks to spare.

FE1_2020_

T.Chunter164 wrote: »

See, I think you are right, I answered in the context of medical negligence as a whole, but the issue is that Katherine didn’t have complications after- which is what makes me think I should have focused more on doctrine of informed consent & battery.... ah well.

I argued the same under med neg, firstly I said that Maurice may have failed in his doc towards katherine in the original examination for not spotting the bad varicose veins in her right leg, and then discussed the doctrine of informed consent arguing he breached katherine rights to autonomy by not affording her the opportunity to consider whether or not she wants to operate especially considering there was no immediate emergency and that it would not likely need to be operated on for another 12 months according to the scenario.

Thats what I rolled with, made a balls of the nuisance essay tho

so I feel that will offset any likelihood f getting the green light come results.

nmurphy1441

How did people find the defamation question?

FE1_2020_

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

How did people find the defamation question?

I answered it but struggled with it, basically concluded with the approach that Jen was liable for the defamation and likely liable for the republication by the Television News reporter and that they may likely be afforded with the defence of innocent publication etc.

I feel like I didn't tease the issues out in a strong persuasive manner, was caught again on time, hopeless for managing it.

T.Chunter164

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I argued the same under med neg, firstly I said that Maurice may have failed in his doc towards katherine in the original examination for not spotting the bad varicose veins in her right leg, and then discussed the doctrine of informed consent arguing he breached katherine rights to autonomy by not affording her the opportunity to consider whether or not she wants to operate especially considering there was no immediate emergency and that it would not likely need to be operated on for another 12 months according to the scenario.

Thats what I rolled with, made a balls of the nuisance essay tho so I feel that will offset any likelihood f getting the green light come results.

Yeah same, left nuisance till last, had case law for both but was really pressed for time. Basically just divided answer in two- blurted out any case I remembered and hoped for the best

nmurphy1441

FE1_2020_ wrote: »

I answered it but struggled with it, basically concluded with the approach that Jen was liable for the defamation and likely liable for the republication by the Television News reporter and that they may likely be afforded with the defence of innocent publication etc.

I feel like I didn't tease the issues out in a strong persuasive manner, was caught again on time, hopeless for managing it.

I wish I had more time to talk about the defences. I basically concluded with he has an action against News television as per the Berry case and possible against the Jen but she might be able to rely on truth in court but the facts will need to be determined first!

lawDani

Hi All, im not sure il get much responses now the sitting is done.. i hope everybody feels ok after them or at least is willing to put them to the back of their minds now and enjoy the break!

my exams i have left to do are;
Tort
Company
Constitutional and
Equity

(and maybe EU after yesterdday)

As i dont have a law background I'm quite clueless as to the content basically and was wondering if anybody could advise what subjects to group into one sitting?

i work full time, would it be a waste to try and sit my last four in October?...

TIA love you all

ruby1998

lawDani wrote: »

Hi All, im not sure il get much responses now the sitting is done.. i hope everybody feels ok after them or at least is willing to put them to the back of their minds now and enjoy the break!

my exams i have left to do are;
Tort
Company
Constitutional and
Equity

(and maybe EU after yesterdday)

As i dont have a law background I'm quite clueless as to the content basically and was wondering if anybody could advise what subjects to group into one sitting?

i work full time, would it be a waste to try and sit my last four in October?...

TIA love you all

I'd shoot for all four if you can! You'd handy get them done there's so much time before October!

If I had to, I'd say Constitutional and Tort have been the hardest for me personally, so if you were to split them up I'd avoid doing them together if possible - wouldn't be impossible just a head wreck.

With Tort, its very content heavy and difficult to predict but once you get a handle on the information it's really not so bad. He's a generous marker imo and once you pick out the main points in a Q and show you understand what you're talking about you're sorted.

Constitutional however is not only content heavy and difficult to predict but is also difficult to get your head around, so you really need to take the time to understand the topics and prepare them before you can even think about learning off.

Company is very straightforward imo (we'll see after results lol) the act is a great clutch, content isn't too difficult to understand, he repeats questions often, and it's reasonably ok to predict.

I found Equity to be one of the easier ones, but I know a lot of people would disagree with that, so it's personal preference there. I just think the course is relatively short and questions are repeated.

That's just my 2 cents! Now I really need to get off this forum until results its like muscle memory checking this forum lol. Hope tort was okay for everyone he honestly is a decent marker and there's never only one way to approach a tort Q!

Diamond_Hands

Having extensive post-mortems is just not helpful especially when the marking scheme is so erratic and you don't know your results at all.

Hope everyone can enjoy a nice break now.

catonafence

Re Eu-

Would anyone be kind enough to tell me what the institutions question was?

nmurphy1441

Best of luck with results everyone! If anyone hears a date in the meantime, you might let us know!

awsah

lawDani wrote: »

Hi All, im not sure il get much responses now the sitting is done.. i hope everybody feels ok after them or at least is willing to put them to the back of their minds now and enjoy the break!

my exams i have left to do are;
Tort
Company
Constitutional and
Equity

(and maybe EU after yesterdday)

As i dont have a law background I'm quite clueless as to the content basically and was wondering if anybody could advise what subjects to group into one sitting?

i work full time, would it be a waste to try and sit my last four in October?...

TIA love you all

Hi, I do not have a law background and work full time. I sat 4 in nov and 4 this time and I'd say its very doable especially if you start putting the work in now. I can recommend a couple of books you can get for constitution and company. Equity is hard marked but they recycle questions a lot and that really saved me. You have a full 6 months, of you take a couple of weeks off and then start back at it you will pass them not a bother!

cailinbeag00

Well done to everyone for getting through this round. Hope everyone can enjoy some down time over the weekend.

Now that I have a bit of breathing space I’m curious about the visual recordings aspect of the exam. Are all recordings watched or is it only if the quality of your paper raises a concern? I understood from something that I read that there was a certain anonymity, with the written exams at least, so wouldn’t the recoding eliminate that.

I’m purely wondering this from the point of view of what I might have to repeat in October and the prospect of an examiner recognising me from my abysmal efforts in this round!!!