Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

1…176177179181182…351

Comments

  • #5342
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    KeepTheFaith wrote: »
    Dyla123 there have been substantial changes to the first 4 areas you mentioned, your best bet would be to download the explanatory memorandum and get it from there it really isn't that long! But I think you're right in saying there are no changes in AP or Succession.

    Does anyone know where I could get a decent Article on Treasure Trove? The new examiner seems fond of it but my Independent Manual doesn't deal with it and I don't have access to any textbooks at the moment. Any help greatly appreciated.

    Webb v Ireland is the only case of note in Ireland really and it goes through it adequately, but all the major textbooks cover it well enough -- Wylie, Lyall etc. I have something from Const on crown prerogative which includes TT, if you want it PM me with your email address.
    Always mention as an aside that Webb was also of note in relation to survival of prerogative, legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

    Failing all that, read this ;-)

    Edit - and always mention that in Webb the SC suggested that the statute law needed updating and that happened, a new Act was enacted.


  • #5343
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Dylan123 wrote: »
    Model answer from your college

    Would anyone agree that EU is by far the most technical of the exams

    Absolutely, and the greatest waste of time and energy too unless you have the Government of Germany for a client which is unlikely, they couldn't afford Irish lawyers ;-)


  • #5344
    T.Watson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭T.Watson


    Absolutely HATE EU. I think it's an insult to the word 'technical'! The whole course is like a giant list of beyond boring rules and sub-rules and exemptions to the rules and sub-rules and grey areas where the rule might not be a rule but a frickin elephant, but make sure you don't discriminate oh no wait you can if you do x,y,z! arrrrrrrrrrrrgh

    Apologies for the rant. It's my first time (dear Jebus hopefully last) sitting EU and I've been really wishing Ireland had to default and leave the damn thing if it meant we didn't have to study it, consequences be damned. Can't seem to get my head around half of the stuff at all.


  • #5345
    Dylan123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 244 ✭✭Dylan123


    If only i knew that b4 i chose the 4 subjects for the 1st sitting... prob would have left EU till the end... still that would been hell leaving all the worst for last...gotta do it sometime! Oh well cant blame anybody even though i asked a few which to go for and nobody advised not to do Eu...give me a scapegoat...it cant be my fault


  • #5346
    bob_lob_law
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 125 ✭✭bob_lob_law


    Is this case in the Griffith Manual re Rights and Responsibilities of Joint Tenants as co-owners - Jones v Jones [1977] 2 All ER 231. It's cited in the examiners report but no sign of it in the IC manual - thanks for any help :)


  • Advertisement
  • #5347
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    bob_lob_law wrote: »
    Is this case in the Griffith Manual re Rights and Responsibilities of Joint Tenants as co-owners - Jones v Jones [1977] 2 All ER 231. It's cited in the examiners report but no sign of it in the IC manual - thanks for any help :)

    Google still works when all else fails:
    In Jones v Jones [1977] 2 A11 ER 231, Lord Denning MR said at p. 235:

    “First the claim for rent. It is quite plain that these two people were in equity tenants in common having a three-quarter and a one-quarter share respectively. One was in occupation of the house. The other not. Now the common law said clearly that one tenant in common is not entitled to rent from another tenant in common, even though the other occupies the whole. That appears from McMahon v Burchell (1846) 2 Ph 127 at 134 by Lord Cotlenham LC and Henderson v Eason (1851) 17 QB 701 at 720. Of course if one of the tenants let the premises at a rent to a stranger and received the rent, there would have to be an account, but the mere fact that one tenant was in possession and the other out of possession did not give the one that was out any claim for rent. It did not do so in the old days of legal tenants in common. Nor does it in modern times of equitable tenants in common….As between tenants in common, they are both equally entitled to occupation and one cannot claim rent from the other. Of course, if there was an ouster, that would be another matter; or if there was a letting to a stranger for rent that would be different, but there can be no claim for rent by one tenant in common against the other whether in law or in equity.”


  • #5348
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Dylan123 wrote: »
    If only i knew that b4 i chose the 4 subjects for the 1st sitting... prob would have left EU till the end... still that would been hell leaving all the worst for last...gotta do it sometime! Oh well cant blame anybody even though i asked a few which to go for and nobody advised not to do Eu...give me a scapegoat...it cant be my fault

    If I had it all to do all over again, or if I was advising an undergrad, I would say

    1) do the FE1s while you are in college, begin in 2nd yr and be finished in 4th yr, could save you a lot of time and you won't have the stuff forgotten. It can be done, just sit the general knowledge exam in Blackhall.
    2) Do Equity, Tort, Contract and Property together, do Constitutional and Criminal together, do Company and EU whenever you like but the first two groups complement each other.

    A 2.1 degree with the FE1s passed will earn a paycheck sooner than a 1.1 with no FE1s tackled at all...


  • #5349
    hession.law
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 108 ✭✭hession.law


    T.Watson wrote: »
    Absolutely HATE EU. I think it's an insult to the word 'technical'! The whole course is like a giant list of beyond boring rules and sub-rules and exemptions to the rules and sub-rules and grey areas where the rule might not be a rule but a frickin elephant, but make sure you don't discriminate oh no wait you can if you do x,y,z! arrrrrrrrrrrrgh

    Apologies for the rant. It's my first time (dear Jebus hopefully last) sitting EU and I've been really wishing Ireland had to default and leave the damn thing if it meant we didn't have to study it, consequences be damned. Can't seem to get my head around half of the stuff at all.

    I know how you feel I wish I could put down in the exam I advise X to go to a qualified EU lawyer who will have all the resources in front of them and more than 30 minutes to give you 5 pages of case law and legislation


  • #5350
    skeenan89
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭skeenan89


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    If I had it all to do all over again, or if I was advising an undergrad, I would say

    1) do the FE1s while you are in college, begin in 2nd yr and be finished in 4th yr, could save you a lot of time and you won't have the stuff forgotten. It can be done, just sit the general knowledge exam in Blackhall.
    2) Do Equity, Tort, Contract and Property together, do Constitutional and Criminal together, do Company and EU whenever you like but the first two groups complement each other.

    A 2.1 degree with the FE1s passed will earn a paycheck sooner than a 1.1 with no FE1s tackled at all...

    you cant apply for the fe1s until you have graduated, hence will u need to send them evidence that u graduated


  • #5351
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    skeenan89 wrote: »
    you cant apply for the fe1s until you have graduated, hence will u need to send them evidence that u graduated

    FFS FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT IS WRONG!!!
    I was told the same crap in UL - read the law soc's website

    You sit the preliminary, then you do the FE1s. I know solicitors who have no degree. Some of them are multi-millionaires now. PLEASE check your facts before promulgating that info - I would have done these exams years ago if I hadn't been misled.


  • Advertisement
  • #5352
    pink101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78 ✭✭pink101


    Thought Constit was very hard and the problem questions in particular 7and 8 were dire.

    Also in the middle of the exam the meeting that was going on next door you could hear the micophones. It was totally out of order. I am going to email the law society about it on monday as I thought it was very distracting. it was hard enough to do the exam without that happening.


  • #5353
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    pink101 wrote: »
    Thought Constit was very hard and the problem questions in particular 7and 8 were dire.

    Also in the middle of the exam the meeting that was going on next door you could hear the micophones. It was totally out of order. I am going to email the law society about it on monday as I thought it was very distracting. it was hard enough to do the exam without that happening.

    Absolutely true - that noise was unacceptably intrusive, and I lost my earplugs! I saw a lot of people using them though.


  • #5354
    pink101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78 ✭✭pink101


    I have just emailed the Law Society to complain. I had earplugs and put them in when I heard it starting It was distracting though and I think the more people that email the law society the better.

    email address is lawschool@lawsociety.ie


  • #5355
    lucat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 430 ✭✭lucat


    pink101 wrote: »
    I have just emailed the Law Society to complain. I had earplugs and put them in when I heard it starting It was distracting though and I think the more people that email the law society the better.

    email address is lawschool@lawsociety.ie

    Totally agree, there was a load of ppl actually looking around when that voice started. And there was someone breathing REALLY LOUDLY beside me, she had a cold I think, was very annoying. At first I was wondering if it was air conditioning or something! The RDS was quieter.


  • #5356
    Hogzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Cant believe people are so affected by sound when doing the exams. I find that I dont pay any attention to the environment around me. A car could probably crash through the window and i wouldnt notice. I find I am so engaged with the paper that my mind filters all external noises out.

    But if people are so affected by noise then its up to you to have ear plugs. When there are nearly 1000 people in one large hall you cannot but expect there to be a certain amount of noise. It would be A LOT worse if there were no carpet.


  • #5357
    akom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭akom


    Hi guys..hope everyone's getting on well so far!

    Theres just been something playing on my mind..would someone mind telling me what q's 7 in Const was in relation to?? Id really appreciate it, thanks!!


  • #5358
    law86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 701 ✭✭✭law86


    It would be a lot worse if it was on a roundabout too, but that's not the point. The venue is considerably more noisy than the RDS. The noise is coming from several different sources. On the day that I was there, bottle bins were being emptied in an adjacent room, drilling was coming from another part of the hotel and there was a loud conversation between several people going on just outside the room, all at different points during the exam. People are right to compain to the Law Society. I don't think anyone expects to get marked more leniently but the LS need to sort out the arrangement with the hotel, because it's not good enough for exam conditions. I shouldn't have to bring earplugs to an exam hall.


  • #5359
    Nang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17 ✭Nang


    akom wrote: »
    Hi guys..hope everyone's getting on well so far!

    Theres just been something playing on my mind..would someone mind telling me what q's 7 in Const was in relation to?? Id really appreciate it, thanks!!

    I thought the first part was in relation to his constitutional right to property and how it was disproportionate incursion into it. Also some of the caselaw in relation to how burdens shouldn't be heaped on one group were relevant such as Re A26 and the Health Amendment Bill (no2) case in relation to making employers pay for integration of the disabled in the workplace.

    I answered the second part based on equality grounds but thought that the courts may be deferential to the issue of tax.

    Make any sense?


  • #5360
    akom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭akom


    Nang wrote: »
    I thought the first part was in relation to his constitutional right to property and how it was disproportionate incursion into it. Also some of the caselaw in relation to how burdens shouldn't be heaped on one group were relevant such as Re A26 and the Health Amendment Bill (no2) case in relation to making employers pay for integration of the disabled in the workplace.

    I answered the second part based on equality grounds but thought that the courts may be deferential to the issue of tax.

    Make any sense?

    Thanks a mill...i actually thought along the same lines myself..not that i did a great q's..remembering case law etc, but wasn't sure.

    Hope it went well for you anyway!


  • #5361
    Nang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17 ✭Nang


    Well glad to know I wasn't the only one who took that line of reasoning in it!
    Just wondering if you took a property rights/livlihood slant on question 2? I only briefly dealed with fair procedures as there wasn't anything in the question which implied any specific right in that regard was being infringed? I also said not entitled to legal aid. Not a criminal matter, pretty basic state of affairs related to fact etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #5362
    bob_lob_law
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 125 ✭✭bob_lob_law


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    Google still works when all else fails:
    In Jones v Jones [1977] 2 A11 ER 231, Lord Denning MR said at p. 235:

    “First the claim for rent. It is quite plain that these two people were in equity tenants in common having a three-quarter and a one-quarter share respectively. One was in occupation of the house. The other not. Now the common law said clearly that one tenant in common is not entitled to rent from another tenant in common, even though the other occupies the whole. That appears from McMahon v Burchell (1846) 2 Ph 127 at 134 by Lord Cotlenham LC and Henderson v Eason (1851) 17 QB 701 at 720. Of course if one of the tenants let the premises at a rent to a stranger and received the rent, there would have to be an account, but the mere fact that one tenant was in possession and the other out of possession did not give the one that was out any claim for rent. It did not do so in the old days of legal tenants in common. Nor does it in modern times of equitable tenants in common….As between tenants in common, they are both equally entitled to occupation and one cannot claim rent from the other. Of course, if there was an ouster, that would be another matter; or if there was a letting to a stranger for rent that would be different, but there can be no claim for rent by one tenant in common against the other whether in law or in equity.”

    Danke!


  • #5363
    akom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭akom


    Nang wrote: »
    Well glad to know I wasn't the only one who took that line of reasoning in it!
    Just wondering if you took a property rights/livlihood slant on question 2? I only briefly dealed with fair procedures as there wasn't anything in the question which implied any specific right in that regard was being infringed? I also said not entitled to legal aid. Not a criminal matter, pretty basic state of affairs related to fact etc.

    Yea I did...thats why I was wondering if property was relevant to q's 7 aswell. I actually dont think i mentioned fair procedures there, I put in non-delegation and dealt with fair procedures in q's 5?


  • #5364
    Nang
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17 ✭Nang


    akom wrote: »
    Yea I did...thats why I was wondering if property was relevant to q's 7 aswell. I actually dont think i mentioned fair procedures there, I put in non-delegation and dealt with fair procedures in q's 5?

    I could be wrong but i think that q5 was more to do with right to a trial in due course of law (A38.5) as it was a criminal charge before a court? I mentioned the DvDPP, ZvDPP, Magee v O'Dea cases and fade factor. Said it was unlikely he would be granted a stay in his trial given the court's (totally wrong IMO) confidence in jurors to disregard media attention.

    Then the second part I thought was to do with justice being done in public being balanced against a right to a pseudonym/ in camera. Also threw in a bit on prior restraint, contempt, FOE. Hope they don't penalise for rambling a bit?!

    Overall said he had a weak case. No stay, no pseudonym.


  • #5365
    akom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭akom


    Nang wrote: »
    I could be wrong but i think that q5 was more to do with right to a trial in due course of law (A38.5) as it was a criminal charge before a court? I mentioned the DvDPP, ZvDPP, Magee v O'Dea cases and fade factor. Said it was unlikely he would be granted a stay in his trial given the court's (totally wrong IMO) confidence in jurors to disregard media attention.

    Then the second part I thought was to do with justice being done in public being balanced against a right to a pseudonym/ in camera. Also threw in a bit on prior restraint, contempt, FOE. Hope they don't penalise for rambling a bit?!

    Overall said he had a weak case. No stay, no pseudonym.

    Sorry im half asleep here with an awful headache..I was actually thinking trial in due course of law when I read your comment on fair proceures :) Hope I didn't make that mistake in the exam..although to be honest I dont think it went well enough to pass it anyway unfortunately! :(


  • #5366
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    bob_lob_law wrote: »
    Danke!

    Freut mich


  • #5367
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Nang wrote: »
    Well glad to know I wasn't the only one who took that line of reasoning in it!
    Just wondering if you took a property rights/livlihood slant on question 2? I only briefly dealed with fair procedures as there wasn't anything in the question which implied any specific right in that regard was being infringed? I also said not entitled to legal aid. Not a criminal matter, pretty basic state of affairs related to fact etc.

    Have a gander at my delusional ravings on Q2 in post 5319.


  • #5368
    -aboutagirl-
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭-aboutagirl-


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    FFS FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT IS WRONG!!!
    I was told the same crap in UL - read the law soc's website

    You sit the preliminary, then you do the FE1s. I know solicitors who have no degree. Some of them are multi-millionaires now. PLEASE check your facts before promulgating that info - I would have done these exams years ago if I hadn't been misled.

    But you do have to be 21 to do the Preliminary exam, wouldn't have made a difference for me as I only turned 21 in my final year. Plus if I didn't have the FE1s to do at the moment I'd be pretty bored/unoccupied considering the difficulties in getting a traineeship at the moment.


  • #5369
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    -aboutagirl- wrote: »
    But you do have to be 21 to do the Preliminary exam, wouldn't have made a difference for me as I only turned 21 in my final year. Plus if I didn't have the FE1s to do at the moment I'd be pretty bored/unoccupied considering the difficulties in getting a traineeship at the moment.

    Not the point I addressed. You don't have to be a graduate is the point I was dealing with. Well done on graduating at 21.


  • #5370
    Dylan123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 244 ✭✭Dylan123


    Any tips on Criminal Law. I read the question and spot perhaps 3/4 of the issues... then look at the model answer and .... i missed 2-3 other issues... the issues make sense... perhaps more practice??? tick tock tick tock... never enough time.... Role on Thursday!!!

    I wonder what an examiner is looking for as a bare min to scrape a pass... have a feeling u want to spot 8 ot of 10.... including main defence and key issues??


  • Advertisement
  • #5371
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Dylan123 wrote: »
    Any tips on Criminal Law. I read the question and spot perhaps 3/4 of the issues... then look at the model answer and .... i missed 2-3 other issues... the issues make sense... perhaps more practice??? tick tock tick tock... never enough time.... Role on Thursday!!!

    I wonder what an examiner is looking for as a bare min to scrape a pass... have a feeling u want to spot 8 ot of 10.... including main defence and key issues??

    I'm on a kamikaze mission as far as criminal is concerned this time, haven't given it anything like enough time to date. I think any examiner is going to look for five completed questions anyway, of those three or better would want to be fairly good.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement