FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

T.Watson · 27-03-2011 08:41PM

hession.law wrote: »

The "carbon levy" is just used to throw you, just remember labels are not definitive you must assess from the facts. Unfortunately the examiner wants you to explore both avenues even if only briefly, just let him know that you are aware of them. That would be a good blueprint of an answer.

I had to give up on FMOG earlier, it was confusing me too much. Maybe it's the stolen hour of sleep that's making EU worse!

I figure you're bang on though...for an answer on it if it comes up and it looks like you have to decide between both then I'm just going to throw down what I know about both, what the differences are and if I'm still unsure (hopefully it'll be ambiguous anyway) I can say this is why I think it's a charge but you could also argue bla bla bla. Hopefully once you show you understand them in some muddled way it'll scrape a pass. That's the dream!

browsergal · 27-03-2011 08:47PM

lucat wrote: »

And I couldn't advise 'Paul' about hiding his identity in media coverage. What caselaw did everyone put down for that?

I was stumped on that and then last night while in bed it hit me: the media coverage was to do with the media's freedom of expression! Argh!

JCJCJC · 27-03-2011 09:20PM

browsergal wrote: »

I was stumped on that and then last night while in bed it hit me: the media coverage was to do with the media's freedom of expression! Argh!

There's a bit of constitutional law to it too though, read this.

27-03-2011 11:07PM

The issue with Paul was mainly to do with Article 34.1 and the Public Administration of Justice.. Although Freedom of Expression of the media would be slightly relevant also. He has given out fairly frequently in his examiners reports about people not being familiar with it.. I was able to cite the Article and talk a bit about it but couldn't give any caselaw and completely forgot to mention the Expression angle..

I'm a bit worried about Property. I've cut out all the Tenure and Fee simple stuff because it's just too boring at this stage! The questions by the new examiner almost seem deceptively straight forward.. Can anyone tell me in relation to Easements, has Section 6 of the 1881 Conveyancing act been replaced or repealed? And if it has been repealed but not replaced does that mean that an Easement no longer passes with a Conveyance?

itsmol · 27-03-2011 11:39PM

Hey anyone staying in the ibis know if there is a shop around within walking distance???Ill starve for the wk otherwise!

bob_lob_law · 27-03-2011 11:54PM

KeepTheFaith wrote: »

The issue with Paul was mainly to do with Article 34.1 and the Public Administration of Justice.. Although Freedom of Expression of the media would be slightly relevant also. He has given out fairly frequently in his examiners reports about people not being familiar with it.. I was able to cite the Article and talk a bit about it but couldn't give any caselaw and completely forgot to mention the Expression angle..

I'm a bit worried about Property. I've cut out all the Tenure and Fee simple stuff because it's just too boring at this stage! The questions by the new examiner almost seem deceptively straight forward.. Can anyone tell me in relation to Easements, has Section 6 of the 1881 Conveyancing act been replaced or repealed? And if it has been repealed but not replaced does that mean that an Easement no longer passes with a Conveyance?

Replaced with s71. Existing easements pass but no new ones can be created as per the Supreme Court decision of William Bennet Construction v Greene - is what I have.

28-03-2011 12:25AM

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Replaced with s71. Existing easements pass but no new ones can be created as per the Supreme Court decision of William Bennet Construction v Greene - is what I have.

Thank you bob. Could you explain what you mean by "no new ones" can be created though? Surely new one's can still be created by Section 33 and 35 which replaced Prescription? Do you mean new ones cannot be created by the Conveyance?

JCJCJC · 28-03-2011 07:08AM

itsmol wrote: »

Hey anyone staying in the ibis know if there is a shop around within walking distance???Ill starve for the wk otherwise!

Not really close by, but if you walk from the Ibis along the service road towards Limerick, ie away from the city, there's a filling station with the usual shop. There's a McDonald's just past the Red Cow on the other side for emergencies.
It seems the Ibis are very pricey for anything beyond the basic B & B, but the breakfast IS good, can't be denied, apart from lousy teabags. The pub lunch in the Red Cow for about €12 is great too, I had lunch there one day last week with Hogzy and it was top-class.

Dylan123 · 28-03-2011 08:42AM

Bit late for stupid questions but...still not sure...those with law degrees will all know this...

The normal definition of the following is:
subjective - opinion
objective - fact

For the purpose of the FE1s and Law am i right in saying:
subjective - What he/sh actually did
objective - reasonable man test

(in regards to criminal law)

Also if a question on rape comes up..we quote s2 Criminal law rape act 1981 not s4 of the Criminal law Rape amendment act 1990??

(editied)
i have in my notes s2 = intercourse without knowing or being reckless..
s4 intended assault... important i suppose as if its an reckless u get few marks for quoting s4 ... which is for intentional

T.Watson · 28-03-2011 10:13AM

Dylan123 wrote: »

Bit late for stupid questions but...still not sure...those with law degrees will all know this...

The normal definition of the following is:
subjective - opinion
objective - fact

For the purpose of the FE1s and Law am i right in saying:
subjective - What he/sh actually did
objective - reasonable man test

(in regards to criminal law)

Also if a question on rape comes up..we quote s2 Criminal law rape act 1981 not s4 of the Criminal law Rape amendment act 1990??

The way I kind of look at subjective/objective (for criminal at any rate) is something like this:

Subjective: If it's a particular crime and a subjective test is laid down then the subjective circumstances of the accused can be taken into account (such as age/state of mind at time/physical characteristics/was he provoked/mental condition etc)

Objective: Reasonble man test. How a reasonable man of like age/intelligence would have acted. As in you can't take subjective things into consideration. How would the reasonable man have acted/behaved in the situation?

That's my jist of it at any rate. There are some circumstances aswell where the reasonable man can be tempered by subjectivity I think. Sorry hope I haven't confused you more!

law86 · 28-03-2011 10:59AM

That's my take on it too.

If a man hits another man, the objective test would regard him as having average intelligence and mental fortitude and judge him accordingly, where the subjective test would have regard to the whole picture; his ability to judge the situation and his background.

Ireland leans towards the subjective test, and sometimes employs a hybrid test:

The reasonable man - objective - in the circumstances as he sees them- subjective.

Just my take on it too, not gospel!

CFOLEY85 · 28-03-2011 11:05AM

hi all.

feeling the pain of Eu, not good!! and I've Property the next day, disaster!! Anywhoo, could some one clarify the following for me please, with regards to FMOW, FTPS, FOE.. does the measure have to justified under Gebhard test AS WELL AS the exhautive list set out in ART 36... or is it either or...

Also with regards FMOG under ART 34 must the restriction be satisfied under CASSIS as well as ART 36...

steph86 · 28-03-2011 11:45AM

JCJCJC wrote: »

Not really close by, but if you walk from the Ibis along the service road towards Limerick, ie away from the city, there's a filling station with the usual shop. There's a McDonald's just past the Red Cow on the other side for emergencies.
It seems the Ibis are very pricey for anything beyond the basic B & B, but the breakfast IS good, can't be denied, apart from lousy teabags. The pub lunch in the Red Cow for about €12 is great too, I had lunch there one day last week with Hogzy and it was top-class.

Yeh ibis barfood is dear. im takin with me teabags and ceral bars etc for the room. didnt know about the shop so will go there to get a sandwiches. have to agree the breakfast is good tho.
I went to the steak house next to the exhibition centre at the red cow on tues, carvery dinner for €10.95. was really good and great value for money too.

steph86 · 28-03-2011 11:48AM

Hogzy wrote: »

As a matter of interest what are people covering for Property?

I have covered:

Ownership and Possession
Equity/Doctrine of Notice
Estates In Land - Primarily the Fee Simply and Fee Simple Subject to a condition.
Succession
CoOwnership
Family Property
Licenses
Covenants
Easements and Profits
Adverse Possession.

Half tempted to do mortgages aswell. I regret not doing it a few weeks ago. Are people covering Landlord and tenant law? I studied it back in February but i have been looking over it again and i just couldnt be bothered. Its a huge chapter and has not come up all that much.

I might just cover a Lease v License in case it appears as a short question.

Hi
im doing the same as you except im doing reg and unreg land instead of covenants and easements. if ive time i may read over covenants tho.

fe1sagain · 28-03-2011 12:41PM

CFOLEY85 wrote: »

hi all.

feeling the pain of Eu, not good!! and I've Property the next day, disaster!! Anywhoo, could some one clarify the following for me please, with regards to FMOW, FTPS, FOE.. does the measure have to justified under Gebhard test AS WELL AS the exhautive list set out in ART 36... or is it either or...

Also with regards FMOG under ART 34 must the restriction be satisfied under CASSIS as well as ART 36...

Art 45, 49 and 56 can be justified under public policy, security or health (Art 52). They can also be justified under the mandatory requirements in the general interest. There is also the possibility of justifying them under exercise of official authority ARt 51 and 62. (Art 45(4) for FMOW - pub service)

FMOG restrictions can be justified under Art 36 or if the measure is an indistinctly applicable rule it can be also be justified under the mandatory requirements in the general interest.

FTPS, FMOW etc are not related to Art 36 whatsoever - Art 36 only to goods

Hope that helps

JoannN · 28-03-2011 12:52PM

Hi all!

I am sitting 3 in a row this week - gah! - I'm in dire straights with EU in particular and I just cant seem to get my head wrapped around FMOG/S/W/C and I was wondering if anyone has or could direct me to a solution "scheme" for solving problems questions in this area, if there is such a thing?

It would be soooo appreciated if someone could help!!!!

Hogzy · 28-03-2011 01:13PM

JoannN wrote: »

Hi all!

I am sitting 3 in a row this week - gah! - I'm in dire straights with EU in particular and I just cant seem to get my head wrapped around FMOG/S/W/C and I was wondering if anyone has or could direct me to a solution "scheme" for solving problems questions in this area, if there is such a thing?

It would be soooo appreciated if someone could help!!!!

I found making spider diagrams for the freedoms very useful.

T.Watson · 28-03-2011 02:54PM

Having pretty much the same problems I was having with the other freedoms. Feel like I have the general jist of things when I'm reading my notes and then can't seem to make head nor tail of the problem questions.

For part (i) of Q7 would anyone happen to know the relevant case law on public service exemption (it's the one on Heinrich from Austria applying for job in Dept of foreign affairs but he's refused interview because post is reserved for Irish nationals)? I didn't even know there was such an exemption so trying to find out some quick info on that.

Also in relation to part (ii) which is about Patrick, Irish national in Belgium who is refused social assistance from Belgium cause he's not a national and not a worker/self-employed...to answer that one would you just start off outlining the definition of a worker (under FMOW) and then seeing if he qualifies. Not really sure how to answer the bit about him not being a national. Is that discrimination but under what, Art 18/20? Not really sure about how to answer that part. The whole social assistance for workers/non-workers confuses me.

If anyone has any ideas about either of those parts or the few issues you'd need to address that'd be great, thanks.

Hogzy · 28-03-2011 02:56PM

Does anyone have a case or two for Bare Licenses?
The Griffith Property manual has 10 pages on proprietary estoppel and literally has 5 lines for bare licenses. Both are examined to the same extend as one part of a 4 part or 3 part question.

Wtf?

CFOLEY85 · 28-03-2011 03:04PM

fe1sagain wrote: »

Art 45, 49 and 56 can be justified under public policy, security or health (Art 52). They can also be justified under the mandatory requirements in the general interest. There is also the possibility of justifying them under exercise of official authority ARt 51 and 62. (Art 45(4) for FMOW - pub service)

FMOG restrictions can be justified under Art 36 or if the measure is an indistinctly applicable rule it can be also be justified under the mandatory requirements in the general interest.

FTPS, FMOW etc are not related to Art 36 whatsoever - Art 36 only to goods

Hope that helps

Thanks a million. Yep it definitely helps.
I emailed my lecturer the same qustion last week... and eh... still waiting for the reply!!

Really hope the examiner doesnt make the problem questions ridiculous long, its just so off putting and very time consuming!!

JCJCJC · 28-03-2011 03:11PM

Hogzy wrote: »

Does anyone have a case or two for Bare Licenses?
The Griffith Property manual has 10 pages on proprietary estoppel and literally has 5 lines for bare licenses. Both are examined to the same extend as one part of a 4 part or 3 part question.

Wtf?

Wylie has (at para 20.03)
Isitt v Monaghan CC [1905]
Winter Garden theatre (London) Ltd v Millenium Productions Ltd [1948]

That's all, and Wylie is authoratitive.
Pearce & Mee have
Thomas v Sorrell [1673]
Davis v Lisle [1936]

Lyall has:
McDonald v Bord na gCon [1965]
Armstrong v Sheppard & Cross Ltd [1959]
Blood v Keller [1861]

Remarkable that none of the three cite any case in common. Hope that helps.

jc

JoannN · 28-03-2011 03:50PM

One other question...

What substantive changes does the Civil Partnership Act have on family home protection...is it just in relation to Property Adjustment Orders s.118 and Misc ancilliary orders s.119? Am I missing anything else?

legalsmeagle · 28-03-2011 05:21PM

EU Oct 2010 Q7 (FMOP/Citizenship)...re Heinrich

ECJ and Art. 39(4) Public Service Exception
•ECJ offered narrow interpretation of “public service” work and determined that the application of exception would depend on the nature of the duties and responsibilities involved at that work, not on the concept of public service (case 149/79 Commission v. Belgium)

T.Watson · 28-03-2011 05:33PM

legalsmeagle wrote: »

EU Oct 2010 Q7 (FMOP/Citizenship)...re Heinrich

ECJ and Art. 39(4) Public Service Exception
•ECJ offered narrow interpretation of “public service” work and determined that the application of exception would depend on the nature of the duties and responsibilities involved at that work, not on the concept of public service (case 149/79 Commission v. Belgium)

Thanks a million! Could only find a tiny one liner in my notes there mentioning it but it hadn't even registered with me.

steph86 · 28-03-2011 05:35PM

JoannN wrote: »

One other question...

What substantive changes does the Civil Partnership Act have on family home protection...is it just in relation to Property Adjustment Orders s.118 and Misc ancilliary orders s.119? Am I missing anything else?

Hi
up for correction here as my notes are packed for the trip to dublin tomoro but as far as i recall under the civil partnership act at s.29 - 31( around those sections) where you have a recognised civil partnership and the property you are residing in is your family home then like the family home protection act 1976 you need consent, it can be dispensed with if it is being unreasonably with held etc. have a quick read through.
Hope that helps

frustratedTC · 28-03-2011 05:40PM

just wondering if its safe to leave out practice procedure detention and bail

JoannN · 28-03-2011 05:44PM

steph86 wrote: »

Hi
up for correction here as my notes are packed for the trip to dublin tomoro but as far as i recall under the civil partnership act at s.29 - 31( around those sections) where you have a recognised civil partnership and the property you are residing in is your family home then like the family home protection act 1976 you need consent, it can be dispensed with if it is being unreasonably with held etc. have a quick read through.
Hope that helps

Perfect, thanks! You are bang on - s.28 - 30. It is called the "shared home" under the act, that's why I couldn't find the provisions due to the fact that civil partners are not a constitutionally recognised "family" duh...!

JoannN · 28-03-2011 05:46PM

Hogzy wrote: »

I found making spider diagrams for the freedoms very useful.

I am running out of time to make spider diagrams...but its a good tip, maybe might draw up a quick one after criminal tomorrow. Cheers!

Dylan123 · 28-03-2011 06:04PM

Is it fair to say most candidates will write a little less in a criminal law exam ..lets say opposed to tort??

Seems like everything is very precise

bob_lob_law · 28-03-2011 06:09PM

Is it ok to leave out silence as misrepresentation re insurance contracts etc? I'm getting quite confused with all this terms, misrepresentations stuff

FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Comments