FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

katherine12 · 05-09-2012 07:18PM

HI Jenny,
I was just wondering if you still provide fe1 grinds? I was wondering how to get more information on same.
Thanks
Katherine

je77rey · 06-09-2012 08:24AM

Does anybody have sample answers for Equity, I have ones for Company, Property, Criminal, Tort and Contract if anyone wants to swap.

Strawberry Fields · 06-09-2012 12:32PM

What are peoples views on Equity, any of the colleges tipped what's coming up?
Can I leave off Mareva injunctions, tracing and doctrine of satisfaction as they came up on the last paper? Or would they reappear?

chops018 · 06-09-2012 01:20PM

godeas16 wrote: »

What are peoples views on Equity, any of the colleges tipped what's coming up?
Can I leave off Mareva injunctions, tracing and doctrine of satisfaction as they came up on the last paper? Or would they reappear?

Well the question last time was an essay on the plaintiff adducing intention on the part of the defendant. This time there could be a question concentrating on full and frank disclosure. Or a problem question involving World Wide Mareva's. Not 100% sure, they could leave it out altogether but just be wary that the last sitting concentrated on a particular part of Mareva, there is still 2 or 3 other questionable areas on it. I'm not going near satisfaction or tracing though, they rarely seem to appear twice, and even Mareva won't be getting as much attention as the other injunctions either.

evercloserunion · 06-09-2012 07:45PM

I've just become slightly confused... Why are there multiple speeches from the Supreme Court in the Norris case, if Article 34.4.5 of the Constitution states:

The decision of the Supreme Court on a question as to the validity of a law having regard to the provisions of this Constitution shall be pronounced by such one of the judges of that Court as that Court shall direct, and no other opinion on such question, whether assenting or dissenting, shall be pronounced, nor shall the existence of any such other opinion be disclosed.

?

Tom Young · 06-09-2012 10:52PM

evercloserunion wrote: »

I've just become slightly confused... Why are there multiple speeches from the Supreme Court in the Norris case, if Article 34.4.5 of the Constitution states:

?

Kelly, 4th Ed.

evercloserunion · 06-09-2012 11:30PM

Tom Young wrote: »

Kelly, 4th Ed.

Thanks, that sorted it. Forgot I even had that book lying around.

For anyone wondering (and I hope I'm not stepping on Tom's toes by disclosing the answer when he specifically chose not to), the reason is that Art 34.4.5 applies only to post-1937 statutes, whereas the prohibition in Norris pre-dated the 1937 Constitution.

Procrastastudy · 06-09-2012 11:37PM

evercloserunion wrote: »

Thanks, that sorted it. Forgot I even had that book lying around.

For anyone wondering (and I hope I'm not stepping on Tom's toes by disclosing the answer when he specifically chose not to), the reason is that Art 34.4.5 applies only to post-1937 statutes, whereas the prohibition in Norris pre-dated the 1937 Constitution.

I'm sure - without actually checking - that there have been multiple judgments on Constitutional issues surrounding Post 1937 statutes - haven't there?

Tom Young · 07-09-2012 12:20AM

Supreme Court judges are normally free to deliver their own judgements, whether dissenting and concurring. However when considering the constitutionality of an Act or Bill passed after the coming into force of the constitution, only a single judgement may be delivered by the Court (Articles 34.4.5° and 26.2.2°). Dissenting and concurring are allowed for considering the constitutionality of an Act passed before the coming into force of the constitution (Article 50).

For example dissenting opinions were given in Norris v. The Attorney General, concerning the constitutionality of ss. 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, whereas only a single judgement was given in Buckley v. The Attorney General, concerning the constitutionality of the Sinn Féin Funds Act, 1947. See Kelly and The State (Sheerin) v. Kennedy.

Procrastastudy · 07-09-2012 12:39AM

Thanks Tom Young.

Really odd comment in the Independent Manual which perhaps someone could shed some light on?

It would be open to a court adopting the harmonious approach to interpreting Article 50 to hold that the [one judgment] rule should equally apply to a decision of the Supreme Court on inconsistency.

How could that be given the previous case law hasn't done that? Even a pointer is greatly appreciated.

Tom Young · 07-09-2012 08:19AM

Article 50:

1. Subject to this Constitution and to the extent to which they
are not inconsistent therewith, the laws in force in Saorstát
Éireann immediately prior to the date of the coming into
operation of this Constitution shall continue to be of full force
and effect until the same or any of them shall have been
repealed or amended by enactment of the Oireachtas.

2. Laws enacted before, but expressed to come into force after,
the coming into operation of this Constitution, shall, unless
otherwise enacted by the Oireachtas, come into force in
accordance with the terms thereof.

The Doctrine of “Harmonious Interpretation" is:

– where two provisions are in conflict in the circumstances of
a particular case the judges read them harmoniously; and

– in practice priority given to one provision.

Please can you refer to a case cited which deals with a pre 1937 statute, Article 50 and the question you are asking?

I can't really determine (nor do I wish to) what was written into a manual. Usually, the drafters of professional law school manuals are persons/practitioners who are working in the area in question, or who have a qualification commensurate with the production of such materials.

Sorry, maybe not the most helpful of replies, but my mind reading skills are and were, always slightly ropey on a Friday am.

Tom

Tom Young · 07-09-2012 08:36AM

In State (Sheerin) v. Kennedy [1966] I.R. 379 The Supreme Court found that the words “validity of laws having regard to the provisions of the Constitution" referred only to statutes passed after Bunreacht came into force and to Article 34.3.2. In relation to pre-constitution Acts they are tested for “inconsistency” with the Constitution under Article 50.

By virtue of Article 50, Pre-1937 laws both Free State and Colonial remain "in force only to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with the Constitution, and if the inconsistency arises for the first time after the coming into force of the Constitution (due to the repeal of related statutes, alteration of the facts, etc.), the law carried forward thereupon ceases to be in force." per Walsh J, in the McGee v Attorney General case.

Tom Young · 07-09-2012 09:10AM

On the 30th of August 2007, this particular thread commenced.

I note with interest that over 996,935 posts have been placed herein.

3065, until we reach a million. Short of 200K posts per annum.

I wonder what this says about the numbers of persons entering, aspiring to enter and perhaps, who have already entered the Law Society via the FE1 route?

lemon_sherbert · 07-09-2012 09:17AM

Does anyone know when the March 2013 dates will be published? Or if they usually take place around the same dates?
Thanks

Fe1exams · 07-09-2012 09:20AM

I am doing closed book exam questions and finding i am exhausted half way through the 2nd or third question and my writing is dreadful cause im in such a rush to get the 3-4 pages down on paper! any tips..?

Also can we bring coffee into the exam hall --- i think there was something mentioned about clear cups only or is there or was there? thanks..not sure theres such a thing as a clear cup for coffee..

banterful · 07-09-2012 10:07AM

Hmm thought it was just water or cans we can bring in but I could be wrong! It should clarify in the letter we get from the Law Soc closer to the exams...

Quick question, does anyone know what the status is on STARRING legislation as opposed to underlining? Obviously not writing anything but putting a little star beside certain provisions - anyone know if that's that acceptable for the FE1s?

Lawls · 07-09-2012 10:36AM

I didn't do any practice rounds before my first set and it was fine...I don't think you can compare how you get on at home to what you will be getting down on paper during the exam. You will be way more focused in the exam and the time will fly, there's no way you'll be feeling exhausted half way through!

As for the coffee, I didn't notice whether people had coffee, but i'd definitely stick to water if i were you. I honestly don't think you'll be tired in there, there's too much adrenaline etc. Water is better because it actually hydrates you and won't make you feel jittery.

Fe1exams wrote: »

I am doing closed book exam questions and finding i am exhausted half way through the 2nd or third question and my writing is dreadful cause im in such a rush to get the 3-4 pages down on paper! any tips..?

Also can we bring coffee into the exam hall --- i think there was something mentioned about clear cups only or is there or was there? thanks..not sure theres such a thing as a clear cup for coffee..

valleyoftheunos · 07-09-2012 10:54AM

Fe1exams wrote: »

I am doing closed book exam questions and finding i am exhausted half way through the 2nd or third question and my writing is dreadful cause im in such a rush to get the 3-4 pages down on paper! any tips..?

Also can we bring coffee into the exam hall --- i think there was something mentioned about clear cups only or is there or was there? thanks..not sure theres such a thing as a clear cup for coffee..

sadly not, no drinks in cups or cans is the rule and they are usually fairly strict on it.

Procrastastudy · 07-09-2012 11:47AM

@Tom Young - No problem and thank you for your continued patience! I thought it was just an odd comment. It's difficult to look at it out of context. I'm familiar* with Constitutional interpretation I just wondered why they chose to apply that particular method in the hypothetical in a condensed manual - I wondered if I was missing something obvious like a currently outstanding case.

*as familiar as average first years get!

@Fe1Exams - They're certainly not FE1 Exams but my undergrad exams are 2.5 hours. I take in a bottle of coke and chocolate bars. I don't know if you can do that in the FE1 exams but my point is that the caffeine doesn't help my hand writing! On the contrary it makes it worse.

chops018 · 07-09-2012 12:00PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

@Fe1Exams - They're certainly not FE1 Exams but my undergrad exams are 2.5 hours. I take in a bottle of coke and chocolate bars. I don't know if you can do that in the FE1 exams but my point is that the caffeine doesn't help my hand writing! On the contrary it makes it worse.

There's caffeine in coke don't forget

and as far as I know you can only bring a bottle of water in.....that's the way it seemed last sitting - only bottles of water everywhere. I agree with the poster above though in that you can't compare the 3 hour exam with trying to sit one at home in 3 hours. You are much more focused in the exam, and the time does indeed fly by in there.

Procrastastudy · 07-09-2012 12:11PM

I go for the full fat full caffeine stuff

and a the rocket fuel they market in Authur's as coffee before the exam.

+1 on the focus - it's totally different sat in an exam than trying to do questions at home.

Northern Child · 08-09-2012 08:13PM

Hi Folks,
Apologies for the question but I am completely stuck on a few constitutional law questions, I am afraid I am struggling to even recognise issues. In particular q7 of the last paper, does anyone have a copy of the paper and would be able to tell what issues arise? I think there is a livelihood issue, but I am wondering what other issues I am missing?

It is the question of the fictitious 'Protection of Low Paid employees act' and part of the act establishes an inspectorate with a levy of 25k to be paid per year to fund it. What particular issue does this raise if there are any experts out there? thanks in advance for your help.

-splatto- · 08-09-2012 10:04PM

Anyone doing the revision course in city colleges this week?I booked it at the last minute on Friday and just realised City Colleges isn't where I thought it is.

Is the course on Georges street or in Templeogue and where abouts?

Cheers

-splatto- · 08-09-2012 10:04PM

Anyone doing the revision course in city colleges this week?I booked it at the last minute on Friday and just realised City Colleges isn't where I thought it is.

Is the course on Georges street or in Templeogue and where abouts?

Cheers

Procrastastudy · 08-09-2012 10:10PM

Northern Child wrote: »

Hi Folks,
Apologies for the question but I am completely stuck on a few constitutional law questions, I am afraid I am struggling to even recognise issues. In particular q7 of the last paper, does anyone have a copy of the paper and would be able to tell what issues arise? I think there is a livelihood issue, but I am wondering what other issues I am missing?

It is the question of the fictitious 'Protection of Low Paid employees act' and part of the act establishes an inspectorate with a levy of 25k to be paid per year to fund it. What particular issue does this raise if there are any experts out there? thanks in advance for your help.

Any possibility of an uploaded scan or photo of it? I really have no idea from that description but it sounds like it has a situation similar to Cityview chucked in there.

ryan606 · 09-09-2012 11:51AM

Could some really awesome person email me on an EU grid if they have it please? Thanking you!

Northern Child · 09-09-2012 02:19PM

hi all, does anyone have the most recent sample answers from the 2012, or any of the 2011 papers for constitutional law? Have materials and grids for all subjects, would be great if anyone could help me out! thanks

banterful · 10-09-2012 12:00AM

-splatto- wrote: »

Anyone doing the revision course in city colleges this week?I booked it at the last minute on Friday and just realised City Colleges isn't where I thought it is.

Is the course on Georges street or in Templeogue and where abouts?

Cheers

Hey splatto,

The city course is on George's St - Wicklow house is the name of the building (opposite Acapulco), 4th floor.

Not sure which course you're doing but from my experience City is definitely the way to go - lecturers really know their stuff & are v happy to help with any questions you may have.

frustratedTC · 10-09-2012 03:57AM

Hi

Hope the study is going well. I have my last 2 exams to sit in March, constitutional and EU. I'm wondering why the general consensus is that these 2 are the 'worst' subjects? Why are they do difficult?

Also which prep school has the best lecturers for these 2 subjects?

boomtown84 · 10-09-2012 10:34AM

frustratedTC wrote: »

Hi

Hope the study is going well. I have my last 2 exams to sit in March, constitutional and EU. I'm wondering why the general consensus is that these 2 are the 'worst' subjects? Why are they do difficult?

Also which prep school has the best lecturers for these 2 subjects?

I'm doing these two in 4 weeks. Brendan Foley in City Colleges is one of the best lecturers there is. I was dreading these two exams big time but he has made them very manageable.
EU is fairly predictable and apparently he is a fair marker.
Constitutional is more difficult to pass I hear.

If anyone has sample answers for Const I can swap the EU ones for them.
The sample answers in City Colleges are pretty bad imo. I've gone through most of them and they seem to answer the q's very differently than the way Brendan advises. Anyone else notice this?

FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Comments