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!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

RandolphEsq

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

Find more posts tagged with

fe1 preparation

fe1's

Quick Links

Comments

Midlecat

kel.lynch wrote: »

Maybe try calling the law society - you might get an answer quicker??? They're really helpful with things like that!!

Thanks I emailed them there. I'll face the music Monday at work

Pepp1989

Could anyone with a constitutional exam grid tell me what, if any, judicial review topic came up the last time out? Thanks!

Redo91

Anyone know why we couldn't take the exam paper home with us from EU today?

Mileyt

Redo91 wrote: »

Anyone know why we couldn't take the exam paper home with us from EU today?

Really? I took it home. I thought something funny going on they kept rechecking our legislation books, like three or four times. What was that about?!

Mileyt

kel.lynch wrote: »

Any thoughts on EU today??

Eh...not good for me but I gave up studying, left within the hour

Mileyt

Midlecat wrote: »

Hey guys. Is it possible to not sit an exam which you are registered for? There is no issue with not signing in - just forfeiting the fee? The exam rules are silent. I want to know if it will affect me doing the remaining ones. I know you have to sign in for first four but what if you've passed first set...

Lol I'm the same I've two days. I was reading previous posts thinking God haven't a clue what they talking about and you backing out of exam?! I took four weeks off and messed it all up seriously considering not bothering with Friday. Definite fails so far well unless a small miracle for my last wk 'spapers. How nice would it be to just take rest of week off

charliebabbitt

Hi guys,

In Equity Q2 Oct 2013 there is a residuary clause in favour of an unincorporated association. Is it necessary to talk about trusts for unincorporated association and the contract holding theory etc? The few times this exact question has come up the reports haven't mentioned anything about the residuary clause. Thanks

Bertie1986

Can anyone please tell me what the essays on specific performance in the Equity papers in March and April 2014 were?

Thanks.

kel.lynch

Redo91 wrote: »

Anyone know why we couldn't take the exam paper home with us from EU today?

I took mine, but I left early. What area were you in?? Agree with Mileyt, the rechecking of the numbers of legislation was strange...

S12b

Bertie1986 wrote: »

Can anyone please tell me what the essays on specific performance in the Equity papers in March and April 2014 were?

Thanks.

March was personal services, April was defences.

Bertie1986

S12b wrote: »

March was personal services, April was defences.

Thanks a mil. I don't have those papers.

Thinking about leaving out defences given that it came up last time and personal services is very popular.

Thoughts anyone??

Midlecat

Mileyt wrote: »

Lol I'm the same I've two days. I was reading previous posts thinking God haven't a clue what they talking about and you backing out of exam?! I took four weeks off and messed it all up seriously considering not bothering with Friday. Definite fails so far well unless a small miracle for my last wk 'spapers. How nice would it be to just take rest of week off

Yea I have no problem understanding or liking it but that doesn't mean I'll be able to read the whole thing and know it off by Friday so going to enjoy next few days cos back to work monday. I only have separation of powers read. Law SOCs said I don't have to go and refund if cert from docs.
I failed last two for sure and been off since start of September. If you have a lot read and are only learning off you should go.

Pepp1989

Midlecat wrote: »

Yea I have no problem understanding or liking it but that doesn't mean I'll be able to read the whole thing and know it off by Friday so going to enjoy next few days cos back to work monday. I only have separation of powers read. Law SOCs said I don't have to go and refund if cert from docs.
I failed last two for sure and been off since start of September. If you have a lot read and are only learning off you should go.

First time I sat these exams Constitutional was my fourth exam and I only really studied for the first three. I spent the afternoon and night before the exam cramming and managed to get 45! So it can be done! Two full days to go!

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Could anybody please explain section 48 charities act 1961 to me!!! Regarding donations and what happens to the surplus in the section, it's in equity question6 april 2012 on surplus of funds upon dissolution of unincorporated ass!

sunshine and showers

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Could anybody please explain section 48 charities act 1961 to me!!! Regarding donations and what happens to the surplus in the section, it's in equity question6 april 2012 on surplus of funds upon dissolution of unincorporated ass!

Do you mean the doctrine of cy-près?

FE1 EXAMS 2013

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Do you mean the doctrine of cy-près?

I actually don't know! I don't think so though, cy-pres isn't mentioned in the reports, it's under automatic resulting trusts

EthanSS

Hey Guys, Could someone help me with Secret Trusts PLEASE. In terms of Half Secret Trusts, if there is an inconsistency between when the will says communication will take place and when it actually took place, does this inconsistency mean (as per the Re Kean case) that the secret trust would fail?? OR would the inconsistency be irrelevant because, unlike in England, a HST is valid as long as its terms are communicated to the half secret trustees prior to the testator death??Majorly confused.com here.

Legal125

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

I actually don't know! I don't think so though, cy-pres isn't mentioned in the reports, it's under automatic resulting trusts

S48 deals with situations where money is collected by donations or boxes lotteries and there is amount left - in such cases it can be conclusively presumed the donor is unknown and if it is not reas to expect donor would get property back then he is presumed to have parted entirely with the property and it can be applied cy pres.
This applies to monies given for charitable and non charitable purposes.
If you google the section it is clear enough in the statute but basically in a prob Q of unincorporated ass and surplus funds u throw in s48 if i remember rightly as a poss to what happens the money

FE1 EXAMS 2013

Legal125 wrote: »

S48 deals with situations where money is collected by donations or boxes lotteries and there is amount left - in such cases it can be conclusively presumed the donor is unknown and if it is not reas to expect donor would get property back then he is presumed to have parted entirely with the property and it can be applied cy pres.
This applies to monies given for charitable and non charitable purposes.
If you google the section it is clear enough in the statute but basically in a prob Q of unincorporated ass and surplus funds u throw in s48 if i remember rightly as a poss to what happens the money

Thanks so much for that, think I was just getting so bogged down and couldn't make sense of the section at all!
That makes so much sense, thank you so so much

;);)

Legal125

FE1 EXAMS 2013 wrote: »

Thanks so much for that, think I was just getting so bogged down and couldn't make sense of the section at all!
That makes so much sense, thank you so so much ;);)

Oh yeah easy it happens!!! I was the same with equity. So many rules.
No hassle at all!

Legal125

King Ian wrote: »

The one observation I have from reading this thread is that many of the questions being asked on the detail of topics suggest that people are worrying way, way too much.

The trick to there exams is having a decent broad knowledge of all topics - not having an indepth knowledge of some or all topics. Yet some people are asking incredibly detailed questions on here which suggest that they have a very detailed knowledge of the topic they're asking about, but are getting all worked up about the tiny nerdy small print.

That's a bit worrying because fussing and over-studying for these exams can be fatal.

Sorry - did u not previously say you never sat these exams.?
Not to be rude or anything but yes the detail levelled above is necessary and esp for equity. If you read her reports she frequently mentions failure to mention relevant sections or the explaining the rules clearly is necessary. So it's prob better to throw a Q out and be clear as to the answer. Furthermore the above Qs are how the topics appear in problem Qs

Detail is the nature of the profession so I would kindly beg to differ.

Broadly knowing what a trust is will get you nowhere in equity for ex - knowing the rules applicable to each will.
And generally in legal terms saying this is generally what ur answer is - seems lacking

Midlecat

King Ian wrote: »

The one observation I have from reading this thread is that many of the questions being asked on the detail of topics suggest that people are worrying way, way too much.

The trick to there exams is having a decent broad knowledge of all topics - not having an indepth knowledge of some or all topics. Yet some people are asking on credible detailed questions on here which suggest that they have a very detailed knowledge of the topic they're asking about, but are getting all worked up about the tiny nerdy small print.

That's a bit worrying because fussing and over-studying for these exams can be fatal.

With all due respect I happen to agree with legal125. I understand you are in practice and never sat these exams and therefore question the basis of your knowledge on how best to approach the exams albeit your advice regarding the questions that have come up to date is appreciated given your experience in practice. The reason so many people are worrying about these exams is because you stand to be presented with a question which requires a broad overview of a lot of topics and requires application similarly you could be presented with a question that hones in on a tiny aspect of one whole area. For example in property in the context of succession you could have a whole question on extrinsic evidence admissibility in the construction of wills, in that scenario it does not suffice to discuss wills in general and validity etc extreme detail is required which indeed I had to answer in my last set.

I am long in the tooth with qualifications in law a BA LLM I have done the QFAs and AITI. I am experienced and work in practice though not qualified and I can safely say that people are not panicking too much as regards the level of detail required that's just my opinion based on sitting the exams to date. Take one look at any examiners report and that will be evidenced.

I do not feel its constructive to dismiss someone's request for information when it is a valid query. It serves to make people think they are approaching the exams incorrectly and dash already lacking confidence even more.

Mileyt

Pepp1989 wrote: »

Could anyone with a constitutional exam grid tell me what, if any, judicial review topic came up the last time out? Thanks!

Hi pepp, you mean for the spring 2014 paper?

Mileyt

kel.lynch wrote: »

I took mine, but I left early. What area were you in?? Agree with Mileyt, the rechecking of the numbers of legislation was strange...

Hi Mel, I was in E block I think in the actual hotel. Girl I live with said they might to of got a tip off someone cheating dunno if that was the case but they kept checking the front pages.

dandadub

Everyone studying Specific Performance in conjunction with Rectification only for tomorrow?

Bertie1986

dandadub wrote: »

Everyone studying Specific Performance in conjunction with Rectification only for tomorrow?

Yeah, I'm just doing contracts requiring supervision and rectification. Ignoring defences to SP.

You?

What injunctions are you doing? I can't face all of them so am only looking at interlocutory and Mareva, but am starting to panic now about leaving the others out...

dandadub

Im hopefully by tonight going to cover.

Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions-Campus Oil essay quest
Quia Timet problem
Mareva
Anton Pillar Order
Spec performance/Rectification
Undue Influence problem
Estoppel essay
Charitable trusts
Trusteeship

If I've time
Certainties
DMC
Quist Close

I know I'm leaving a lot out but I really hate this exam and I don't think I have the heart to look at the rest

Bertie1986

dandadub wrote: »

Im hopefully by tonight going to cover.

Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions-Campus Oil essay quest
Quia Timet problem
Mareva
Anton Pillar Order
Spec performance/Rectification
Undue Influence problem
Estoppel essay
Charitable trusts
Trusteeship

If I've time
Certainties
DMC
Quist Close

I know I'm leaving a lot out but I really hate this exam and I don't think I have the heart to look at the rest

Given that you will be completely covered for injunctions that's plenty of other topics I reckon.

I'm leaving out QT and AP, so have to do a few more topics.

I HATE Equity and tomorrow is my last for this sitting so all I can think about is going out tomorrow night after way too long in hibernation!!

Pepp1989

Mileyt wrote: »

Hi pepp, you mean for the spring 2014 paper?

Ya Mileyt! If you have the info for the two sittings last spring then that would be super!

kel.lynch

Mileyt wrote: »

Hi Mel, I was in E block I think in the actual hotel. Girl I live with said they might to of got a tip off someone cheating dunno if that was the case but they kept checking the front pages.

Yeah, when I mentioned it to my parents they said the same thing - or else there might have been an issue with the paper, hence why some people weren't allowed to take their exam paper with them. My number was written on the front cover in marker pen and the lady kept looking at only that, the way my book was on the table the pages were curled under each other so you couldn't reach the front pages without lifting the book away, which she never did!

I wonder what the connection with the legislation could have been with cheating and where the tip-off might've come from? The only other explanation I could think of for the book checking was that somebody was given a book that wasn't theirs???

Hmmmm, interesting...!