FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) No trading

is anyone focusing on any specific charitable trust ie poverty/religion/education? is anyone in particular due a run?

How do you think the marks would be allocated for this ? I blitzed fair procedures out of it but didn't answer on Religion because I didn't know anything on it, got about 15-20 cases down for F.P to give you a fair idea of what I did !

Fairplay Bob !

I discussed the point of religion and equality and the area of presumption of invalidity where someone is said to have been discriminated on basis of religion.

Hoping he is open to interpretation lol

Advancement of religion came up last time as far as I remember as part q and the exceptional cats of non char PT so I might focus on benefit to community and education …

im really struggling and stressing as to what to pin down on …

Anyone else's brain starting to go nope? I had Constitutional today and can't remember a thing now for equity 😂

EQUITY

anybody think it would be safe to leave out Anton Pillar?

Anyone who has done the prep courses for contract and EU, have they given you any predictions for them?

Even if you can't remember the name you should definitely still write down the facts and decision, you're bound to get marks even if you didn't specify the case name. If you have time at the end of the exam you should come back and see if it pops back into your head. I find that the harder you try to remember a case name the more difficult it is actually remembering it so if you come back to it at the end it might come back to you. Another thing I find helpful with remembering case names is to try and find a connection between the facts and the case name. The connection doesn't even have to be law related it could be something completely arbitrary you take from your own life. I find it really useful especially when you need to learn about 300 cases haha.

Anyone know what is due up for terms? Or what are people focusing more on

I learnt only unilateral in only in general terms.

This happened to me with contract last sitting and I just wrote down the facts of the case and the important principle from it - managed to scrape a pass. I did have one very good answer that I got 14 in which likely saved me but the rest were very poor. Still managed to get 7 and 8s in the answers that I forgot case names as it was clear I knew the facts and decisions in cases and applied that to the question.

Any chance anyone has the examiner's report for november 20 contract exam please?

I just have the differences between it and promissory like can be a sword etc and two cases (thorner v major / gillet v holt) just incase

100%

This time tomorrow we’ll be nearly done the exam at least!

Does anyone have today's paper?

It happens. I doubt it was flagged, and even if it did, you didn't do anything wrong.

Well what’s the general consensus on Equity?

do the examiners just take 5 questions even where you’ve jotted down words And points in others?

my undue influence question could have been a lot better so I tried to bump up with attempt marks on others

LAST HURDLE LADS 🙏 keep going those who have one more nearly there xoxo

I thought it was an okay paper, fair in the sense certain topics came up that were due a run, but at same time in harsh that they came up in ways no one was predicting, i.e. No QT Injunction, No SP/REC problem Q. The trustees Q was very narrow focus on duty to invest - not the usual clothes shop.

Also system kicked me out a few times and didn't give me the time back - I would say i lost 10-15 mins in total. I have sat these exams online before, so I know once it kicks you out you get the time back - but for me it took me to a black screen saying "redirecting" this could take 2 mins but in one isntance in took about 5/6 and when i came back in time wasnt the same. Has this happened anyone else?

I thought it was a reasonable enough paper. Answered the problem Q on charitable trusts, the Strong v Bird essay, the SP and personal services, the note question and the mandatory interlocutory injunction one. Felt like my Strong v Bird question was fairly short as there are only 6 cases as far as I'm aware. I mentioned Strong v Bird, Re Stewart, Re Wilson and Re Freeland for the first part and Re James and Re Gonin for the second part. I said that the rule might not apply because there might not have been a continuing intention up until death as he left the property for the three of them equally, and said that it would depend on when he made the will, whether it was before he told Patrick he would transfer the lease (where the rule would apply), or whether it was after (where it wouldn't as he wouldn't have had the continuing intention). Would be interested to see if anyone else came to the same conclusion?

On the charitable trusts question, I said the first bequest was for advancement of education, and that post-grads likely wouldn't be a wide enough class to confer a public benefit. The second bequest I said might fail as it was for changing the law (National Anti Vivisection Society, McGovern), but that it might be saved by S.2 if it is made to a charity which where a political purpose is directly related to their charitable status. The final one I said would probably fail as it was contingent on the relationship with the donor, and that S.3 of the 2009 Act prevents this, but there has been no cases on poor relations and the English jurisprudence might be persuasive (AG v Charity Commission). On the last one I didn't give any concrete advice and said it remains to be seen whether such gifts will be deemed charitable.

What did everyone else think? Looking for reassurances more than anything haha.

Had to edit this as I misread your last few lines haha the post exam panic on here is never good if you think you've gone wrong!

But on your answers, I had similar stuff for the Charitable purpose questions! Didn't include any UK case law under the last point but I did mention the first bequest could also be saved in the beneficial to the community part if you consider it the advancement of culture etc.

I also realized I said the categories were under s.2 not s.3 by mistake, but hoping they'll not penalise me there just a mix up!

Think I pretty much did this for these ones, just had in a line too about how 'family' might be construed. Thought it was an ok paper but not great, some of the questions seemed to be fairly narrowly focused. I defo did a terrible job on the advancement half-question, only gave the bare bones of what it's about and the problems with it but zero cases. Hoping against hope I can pick up enough points elsewhere to get through overall! 😬

Thanks so much to everyone for sharing info on the exams and their experiences with them in general here. I don't personally know anyone doing the FE1s at the mo and have found it really helpful to see that other people are slogging away at these too. Best of luck to all sitting tomorrow's paper!

Would anybody have a corrected eu script they wouldnt mind sharing to get an idea? Have constitutional, contract and property to swap

That problem question was defo Strong v Bird i.e., imperfect gift made during lifetime etc. is enough to contravene the beneficiaries of the will - legal and beneficial interest with the donor etc. That’s not to say all of what you wrote isn’t relevant.

Also the trustees question wasn’t that narrow in scope, although he talked about investments, the standard of care meant you could bring in the other duties but in the scope of investments e.g. , duty to distribute/not to profit etc.