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

FEar1

Hello everyone. Here we go again.

Finally pushed myself into looking at Company Law in depth for the first time since 2010. As it turns out, I still don't like it.

I am obviously doing up notes on the 'core' topics, which I hear are Directors, Corporate Borrowing, Minority Shareholder Protection and Separate Legal Personality (although I notice Courtney has asked the same SLP question twice in a row now which worries me). I think I read someone saying back in March that they thought Ultra Vires might just get one last day out too.

Can anybody else sitting/suffering Company Law share their thoughts on what direction to go in terms of other topics?

neesie_85

FE1 student wrote: »

I am dreading the EU exam. I hope it's nothing like the last one. I just can't get motivated to study it at all and time is ticking.

THIS IS MY LAST EXAM AND CANNOT GET MOTIVATED AT ALL!

Simplyliving04

chops018 wrote: »

I cannot answer that off the top of my head and I am not going through treaties and past case law - had my old notes handy this morning so just thought I would pop that up in the hope it might help.

Your question seems like it may be beyond the scope of the FE1's - forgive me if there was a certain question that came up on what you're asking but I do not think you need to go into so much detail - the case law is there for you to read, maybe go through the full judgment of the case?

Sorry I cannot help you any further - I passed the FE1's last year and the EU subject in the March 2013 sitting so I would not be as fully immersed into the intricacies of EU Law as I once was.

Funny - most people hated Constitutional and EU the most, whereas I found them fascinating to study. They are hard subjects to wrap your head around though.

No worries, thanks for the help anyway. I'll take it I don't need to know and that the justification is somewhere.

The ECJ seemed fond of an over-expansive interpretation of their powers anyway so it might just be case of that!

chops018

Simplyliving04 wrote: »

Hey Chops, many thanks for that! I guess my real question is not how various cases have satisfied this criteria as you laid out above but rather, where did the ECJ get the authority to even set out such criteria in the first place?!

It seems as if the treaty provisions in 110 are against all direct or indirect discriminatory measures without providing a 'policy objective' derogation clause as provided for with other fundamental freedoms

I cannot answer that off the top of my head and I am not going through treaties and past case law - had my old notes handy this morning so just thought I would pop that up in the hope it might help.

Your question seems like it may be beyond the scope of the FE1's - forgive me if there was a certain question that came up on what you're asking but I do not think you need to go into so much detail - the case law is there for you to read, maybe go through the full judgment of the case?

Sorry I cannot help you any further - I passed the FE1's last year and the EU subject in the March 2013 sitting so I would not be as fully immersed into the intricacies of EU Law as I once was.

Funny - most people hated Constitutional and EU the most, whereas I found them fascinating to study. They are hard subjects to wrap your head around though.

Simplyliving04

chops018 wrote: »

Just having a quick look over my old notes and found this:

1) Justification for Indirect Discrimination

MS can justify the tax if it’s to pursue a Legitimate Objective” – Unrelated to Origin of the Product:
1. The Test must apply in an identically manner to both Imports and Domestic Goods
2. Pursue a Legitimate Policy Objective
3. Be based on OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that Justify this Indirect Discrimination
4. Apply in a Non-Discriminatory Manner

Hey Chops, many thanks for that! I guess my real question is not how various cases have satisfied this criteria as you laid out above but rather, where did the ECJ get the authority to even set out such criteria in the first place?!

It seems as if the treaty provisions in 110 are against all direct or indirect discriminatory measures without providing a 'policy objective' derogation clause as provided for with other fundamental freedoms

Simplyliving04

chops018 wrote: »

Just having a quick look over my old notes and found this:

1) Justification for Indirect Discrimination

MS can justify the tax if it’s to pursue a Legitimate Objective” – Unrelated to Origin of the Product:
1. The Test must apply in an identically manner to both Imports and Domestic Goods
2. Pursue a Legitimate Policy Objective
3. Be based on OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that Justify this Indirect Discrimination
4. Apply in a Non-Discriminatory Manner

Hey Chops, many thanks for that! I guess my real question is not how various cases have satisfied this criteria as you laid out above but rather, where did the ECJ get the authority to even set out such criteria in the first place?!

It seems as if the treaty provisions in 110 are against all direct or direct discriminatory measures without providing a 'policy objective' derogation clause as provided for with other fundamental freedoms

chops018

Simplyliving04 wrote: »

EU law question here I cannot wrap my head around that I really hope some kind soul can help me out with!

Regarding Article 110 and justifications for indirectly discriminatory measures - Why can member states justify indirectly discriminatory measures so long as it pursues a legitimate policy objective (presuming of course it applies to domestic and imported products the same).

Reading the Chemical Farmaceutici case and I still can't understand where the allowance for a justification comes from when the treaty article expressly prohibits "directly or indirectly" any taxes in excess of those imposed on similar products. The two types of alcohol in the case satisfied the similar test, one was imported the other not and were taxed differently. I can find no justification anywhere in the treaties for allowing such a difference on legitimate policy grounds.

I feel like I am missing something outrageously obvious here. Many thanks if anyone can help clear this up for me as it's blockading my whole fundamental freedoms comprehension!

Just having a quick look over my old notes and found this:

1) Justification for Indirect Discrimination

MS can justify the tax if it’s to pursue a Legitimate Objective” – Unrelated to Origin of the Product:
1. The Test must apply in an identically manner to both Imports and Domestic Goods
2. Pursue a Legitimate Policy Objective
3. Be based on OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that Justify this Indirect Discrimination
4. Apply in a Non-Discriminatory Manner

Chemial Farmaceutici
Higher tax applied to Syntehtic Ethyl Alcohol as compared with naturally obtained Ethyl Alcohol – BOTH Products WERE Very Similar within meaning of A110(1). This favoured domestic goods over imports – since imports were MORE LIKELY to be taxed at higher rate taly argued that Objective Factors motivated the Taxation, and that there was a Legitimate Objective – which was that the Synthetic Alcohol could be thereby preserved – and thereby used for alternative economic purposes
 ECJ Said that this was allowable – they DID “Look Behind” Italy’s assertion that there were Objective Factors and/or that there was a Legitimate Objective – but in this case, both criteria existed.

Hope that helps you

Simplyliving04

EU law question here I cannot wrap my head around that I really hope some kind soul can help me out with!

Regarding Article 110 and justifications for indirectly discriminatory measures - Why can member states justify indirectly discriminatory measures so long as it pursues a legitimate policy objective (presuming of course it applies to domestic and imported products the same).

Reading the Chemical Farmaceutici case and I still can't understand where the allowance for a justification comes from when the treaty article expressly prohibits "directly or indirectly" any taxes in excess of those imposed on similar products. The two types of alcohol in the case satisfied the similar test, one was imported the other not and were taxed differently. I can find no justification anywhere in the treaties for allowing such a difference on legitimate policy grounds.

I feel like I am missing something outrageously obvious here. Many thanks if anyone can help clear this up for me as it's blockading my whole fundamental freedoms comprehension!

Peregrinus

Talk to them about being allowed to keyboard your answers (on a dumb machine, natch). I don't know what there attitude is, but if you have a diagnosis of dysgraphia or similar a lot of educational institutions will accommodate this, so as not to disadvantage students over an issue which is not relevant to the attainments and aptitudes an exam is supposed to measure.

And, whatever happens, learn to touch-type. It will make a huge difference to you.

tiischy

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

My handwriting is very slow. I know the old 'quality v quantity' argument, but I'm genuinely worried that it's gonna hold me back with the FE1s. I've no doubt that I have the ability to pass the exams on an organisational and endurance level, but I'm just so worried that there won't be enough time for me to get my answers down on paper. I've just picked up work in a firm, with a good chance of being offered a contract when the time comes. So everything seems to be coming together, but I'm simply bricking it over these bloody things.

Same. I think I spend more time worrying about that than the actual exams

Right Turn Clyde

My handwriting is very slow. I know the old 'quality v quantity' argument, but I'm genuinely worried that it's gonna hold me back with the FE1s. I've no doubt that I have the ability to pass the exams on an organisational and endurance level, but I'm just so worried that there won't be enough time for me to get my answers down on paper. I've just picked up work in a firm, with a good chance of being offered a contract when the time comes. So everything seems to be coming together, but I'm simply bricking it over these bloody things.

Hunchback

missindigo123 wrote: »

My intention was to just know the main points of the new legislation and put them almost as a conclusion to questions!! I'm in no way concerned with life in the office, I'll prepare for that when the time comes!!
Just wanted to be sure that a paragraph at the end would do the trick! Not even sure how to answer a question solely on the new legislation tbh!!

Cool Cool, sorry if my post came across as a bit prim - on looking it back it does read a bit like that. My main thing was, having been in an office where people are adjusting to the implications of the new Act and calls are coming in from clients who need to be advised on how to adapt to its requirements, it does have real use to be familiar with it, and now more than ever. And considering that you can answer with reference to one OR the other in the exam.....

But as you said passing is your main concern. And as Sunshine identified, you only have six weeks and perhaps you don't have the materials for the 2014 Act. So I see where you are coming from.

Scandixx

Hello!

I'm doing my first sitting of the fe1s at the end of september this year. I'm taking equity, tort, contract and property. I've all my notes finished and am just starting to learn them all.. Does anyone have any tips for learning off? Eg what to leave out/ how to approach it.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Reply Edit

Scandixx

Thanks chops loads of helpful advice there thank you

sunshine and showers

Yeah, thanks, Hullaballoo. Just stress setting in - I need these exams to be over already. Again!

hullaballoo

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Yeah, not saying pretend the new legislation doesn't exist, lads. But the poster has a 2014 manual and about six weeks until the exam. Presumably other subjects to do too.

In an ideal world, you'd learn both inside out. We'd also all get As. In FE1 land, you want to pass and nobody cares about anything over that beautiful 50%.

There's time enough to read the new legislation and put it to good use. Believe me, these exams are difficult enough, CK.

It's perfectly acceptable and, in my opinion, the better option to focus on the 1963-2012 regime because whatever happens under the new Act will be done against a backdrop of hundreds of years of law, just like any new Act.

What I am getting at and I think it's the most sensible approach all round is that you are aware of the headline changes brought in by the new Act so that you can add it as more or less a footnote to your answer. I'm talking about a general awareness, rather than anything in-depth.

My point about your career is one that I've raised before. I understand the exam pressure situation that means you cannot give your undivided attention to every facet of the syllabus for any given subject but when you get out the other side of the exams and start training, you cannot turn around to whoever you're working with and say, "I left that chapter out."

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you can look over the stuff when you're finished your exams because you simply will not. You won't pick up a dreary law book until the next time you absolutely have to and that will remain the same for the rest of your life!

missindigo123

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Absolutley agree with this post. It will stand you in good stead when you get into the office. We all want to pass these exams, but wouldn't it be way more use to learn the Companies Act 2014? I'd be a tiny bit embarrassed if a new colleague asked me a question about DAC companies and how they are treated under the Act and I couldn't answer because I elected to study the old legislation.

My intention was to just know the main points of the new legislation and put them almost as a conclusion to questions!! I'm in no way concerned with life in the office, I'll prepare for that when the time comes!!
Just wanted to be sure that a paragraph at the end would do the trick! Not even sure how to answer a question solely on the new legislation tbh!!

chops018

There is an FE1 thread which this would be more useful in.

It's usually always on the front page as people regularly post in it.

From my experience of the FE1's I never understood why people would spend most of their time making notes when the manuals already have everything there, although I am not saying do not make notes at all.

I used to go through a chapter in the manual, then go over 3-5 sample answers for that chapter and see exactly how many different types of questions can be asked on each topic, then I would try to maybe make a very quick 5 minute summary of 1-2 pages of the topic just jotting down headings and case names (for memory), but my main aim was understanding the topic/area I was studying.

For each topic I was only happy if I was comfortable enough to be able tell my friend/relative about it over lunch (not that I ever did but you know what I mean, but at a good level of understanding the topic that you could do this, and if you can then you should be able to answer a question on it).

This usually took me 2-3 hours, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the topic.

If I was having problems with an area then I would post on the FE1 thread, I would search online, go through the text book or even the nutshell.

In terms of leaving areas out I was always a firm believer of covering at least 90% of each subject. However from looking at exam grids you can see for some of the subjects there are areas that can be completely left out.

If you have a good exam grid and go back through the past questions you will see what areas are usually asked on for each topic. For example in Equity I think for each injunction there was only two or three certain types of questions they could actually ask you, so just learn them off. Another area in Equity was the remedies, I think for them there was very little room for different questions in these areas so again just learn off the questions and cases for these.

When it came very close to the exam I would literally scan back over each of the topics and just try to drum case names into my head. The City Colleges NBN's (Night Before Notes) were very good for this. They put these online for everyone for free, I never did a prep course so I was delighted to get them. Also get to know other people doing the exams and you can trade notes and sample answers etc. I did this and the amount of material I have on my laptop for the FE1's is unreal.

It took me 4 sittings to get all 8 - they are gruelling.

Also the weirdest set of exams ever by the way. I have come out of exams thinking I did 5 strong answers and ended up getting low 40's (Tort and Company were my Achilles heel subjects) then other exams (Constitutional) I waffled and threw in everything and hoped for the best and passed no problem (I must have included Separation of Powers for nearly every question and for one question I only used the Constitution provisions and one case). Although I remember for Constitutional I knew the principle of Proportionality very well and this could be applied in all the rights based questions so that helped.

The main thing is if you put the work in and know what the examiner wants and know the info then you will pass. Remember the simple system of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) for most problem questions and you can't go too far wrong. Be wary of the mixed topic questions and for essay questions make sure you read the question and relate your answer to this, try give your opinion and put in some scholarly articles (if you can) for brownie points.

Good luck with your first set. It sounds like you are way ahead of schedule with all your notes done and now you have plenty of time to look at past papers, sample answers and learn off cases.

Scandixx

sunshine and showers

Yeah, not saying pretend the new legislation doesn't exist, lads. But the poster has a 2014 manual and about six weeks until the exam. Presumably other subjects to do too.

In an ideal world, you'd learn both inside out. We'd also all get As. In FE1 land, you want to pass and nobody cares about anything over that beautiful 50%.

There's time enough to read the new legislation and put it to good use. Believe me, these exams are difficult enough, CK.

Hunchback

hullaballoo wrote: »

I would suggest that there may be implications of totally ignoring the new Companies Act for your professional lives. There are many changes to the law under the new Act and the practice and procedure will have to change as a result. I can understand the temptation to just pretend there is no new Act but I would suggest that you have at least some idea what the major changes are under the new Act - like what the new company types are, changes to restriction/disqualification of directors and the various other larger heads.

I wouldn't suggest learning the new sections by number but have an idea what the bigger changes are and how they might change how you go about answering the exam paper.

Absolutley agree with this post. It will stand you in good stead when you get into the office. We all want to pass these exams, but wouldn't it be way more use to learn the Companies Act 2014? I'd be a tiny bit embarrassed if a new colleague asked me a question about DAC companies and how they are treated under the Act and I couldn't answer because I elected to study the old legislation.

hullaballoo

I would suggest that there may be implications of totally ignoring the new Companies Act for your professional lives. There are many changes to the law under the new Act and the practice and procedure will have to change as a result. I can understand the temptation to just pretend there is no new Act but I would suggest that you have at least some idea what the major changes are under the new Act - like what the new company types are, changes to restriction/disqualification of directors and the various other larger heads.

I wouldn't suggest learning the new sections by number but have an idea what the bigger changes are and how they might change how you go about answering the exam paper.

missindigo123

missindigo123 wrote: »

Any suggestions for Company Law? Worried about the new act coming into force. Using a 2014 manual and I heard that the examiner is a very hard marker so want to make sure I'm ok to just use the new law as part of a concluding point almost?

Thanks a mill

sunshine and showers

missindigo123 wrote: »

Any suggestions for Company Law? Worried about the new act coming into force. Using a 2014 manual and I heard that the examiner is a very hard marker so want to make sure I'm ok to just use the new law as part of a concluding point almost?

Fairly certain it's still either or. It was for the last sitting. Use the old or the new.

In fact, I just checked the syllabus and that is the case. Base answers on the Companies Act 1963-2013 or the Companies Act 2014.

So you can forget about the new law if you want. I am. Enough to be at!

missindigo123

Any suggestions for Company Law? Worried about the new act coming into force. Using a 2014 manual and I heard that the examiner is a very hard marker so want to make sure I'm ok to just use the new law as part of a concluding point almost?

Hunchback

law_student1 wrote: »

Just a quick question regarding equity, in Purpose Trusts is there any need to study Public Benefit prior to the 2009 act seeing as this act is now in force? Don't want to waste my time on it if it is completely irrelevant!

Hi Law Student 1.

This is just my two cents here, somebody else might directly (and correctly!) contradict me - so this is just my opinion.

Now, disclaimer aside, I would be inclined to include the case law that illustrates the area. You may be asked a question that requires you to trace the development of the law in the area, hence a knowledge of the development of the case law and the different issues that the judiciary grappled with would need to be discussed. Also, legislation is not produced in isolation or in a vacuum. It tends to be informed by precedence as much as it might be anticipatory. So I think that in order to discuss the legislation at least a mention of the old case law is required.

Also, I think if you were asked a question on, say, donations for political purposes and you did not mention case law to illustrate your point, but only referred to the act, it would be a very short exam answer - too short.

In short, I get where you are coming from - needing to be economical with where you focus your energy, but I personally think study of this area (and pretty much any area?) needs to include the case law even if legislation has been enacted that supplants it - the case law still illustrates and complements it. Also, the case law in the area is actually quite interesting. Well, I think so anyway. Just a few reads over it and it should stick in your mind easily enough.

Best of luck with it. GO TEAM!

:pac:

law_student1

Just a quick question regarding equity, in Purpose Trusts is there any need to study Public Benefit prior to the 2009 act seeing as this act is now in force? Don't want to waste my time on it if it is completely irrelevant!

dashdoll

Thanks for the reply!

hochspitch wrote: »

Not gonna lie it's not the most straightforward exam. There are a lot of topics in torts so it's difficult to rely on just learning the minimum and hoping they came up. A lot of people screwed over in March's exam because liability for animals almost always comes up and this year they put a question on liable for accidental fire damage instead. Topics can be quite long (negligence/defamation) and you don't know what way they're going to come up. Not trying to put you off but if you want to sit torts definitely make sure you cover enough topics and know they pretty well.

kd2121

Hi! I'm sitting 3 exams in October and am deciding between constitutional and EU..which would be the better option?

hochspitch

dashdoll wrote: »

Could anyone that has sat the Tort exam offer any advice on it?

I'm considering taking it on for the Sept exams but haven't looked at it all yet and won't be able to for a few weeks yet.

Just wondering if it is one of the more doable exams or if it is a very broad course to cover or if there are any banker qs in it?

Thanks a mil.

Not gonna lie it's not the most straightforward exam. There are a lot of topics in torts so it's difficult to rely on just learning the minimum and hoping they came up. A lot of people screwed over in March's exam because liability for animals almost always comes up and this year they put a question on liable for accidental fire damage instead. Topics can be quite long (negligence/defamation) and you don't know what way they're going to come up. Not trying to put you off but if you want to sit torts definitely make sure you cover enough topics and know they pretty well.