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

kiwi33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No it's specifically you can be found not guilty of committing the arrestable offence, but guilty of being an accessory after the fact. I'm just not sure who you're meant to have been an accessory TO if you didn't do it.

An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it. it can be known as obstructing justice or harboring a fugitive.

sunshine and showers

kiwi33 wrote: »

You are guilty because you didn't commit the robbery but you helped someone else to commit a robbery by either driving them to the scene or keep watch for them etc. knowing what they intended to do

No it's specifically you can be found not guilty of committing the arrestable offence, but guilty of being an accessory after the fact. I'm just not sure who you're meant to have been an accessory TO if you didn't do it.

kiwi33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That's what I thought it said, but how can you be guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery you didn't commit? That's the part I'm confused with.

You are guilty because you didn't commit the robbery but you helped someone else to commit a robbery by either driving them to the scene or keep watch for them etc. knowing what they intended to do

sunshine and showers

Simplyliving04 wrote: »

I'm open to correction here as I'm not doing criminal this time so its nearly six months since I looked at this but I think it just means that if x is up for robbery but is found not guilty, x could still be convicted for aiding and abetting robbery

That's what I thought it said, but how can you be guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery you didn't commit? That's the part I'm confused with.

Simplyliving04

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I just can't wrap my head around Section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. I understand the concept of an accessory after the fact, it's just this one subsection that's getting me. If someone could break it down for me in plain English, I'd be much obliged!

I'm open to correction here as I'm not doing criminal this time so its nearly six months since I looked at this but I think it just means that if x is up for robbery but is found not guilty, x could still be convicted for aiding and abetting robbery

kiwi33

corkres1989 wrote: »

I'd just do mareva injunctions and I'd add tracing to your list other than that that's all I'm doing.

I would also do mandatory interlocutory injunctions and quia timet - quia timet is very simple and mandatory interlocutory injunctions the same type questions comes up over and over again so its easy to have an essay prepared

sunshine and showers

I just can't wrap my head around Section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. I understand the concept of an accessory after the fact, it's just this one subsection that's getting me. If someone could break it down for me in plain English, I'd be much obliged!

7.—(1) Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender.

(2) Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him or her to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his or her apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) If, upon the trial on indictment of an arrestable offence, it is proved that the offence charged, or some other offence of which the accused might on that charge be found guilty, was committed but it is not proved that the accused was guilty of it, the accused may be found guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of which it is proved that he or she is guilty in relation to the offence charged, or that other offence.

Figsy32

Should this have me covered for tort?

Negligence
Pure economic loss/Psychiatric Damage
Professional Negligence
Public Authority Liability
Occupiers Liability
Product Liability
Trespass to the Person
Land Torts
Passing Off
Liability for Animals
Defences
Limitations
Damages

Left off Defamation, Vicarious Liability and Employers Liability. They all came up last year but wondering if I should do one of them just to be sure?

corkres1989

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

Cheers Kiwi! Would I need to cover all injunctions or would I get away with cutting down a bit?

I'd just do mareva injunctions and I'd add tracing to your list other than that that's all I'm doing.

jdbarry

oraghabd wrote:

Doing criminal, company, EU and contract, does anyone know what the pass rate is like?

oraghabd wrote:

I think the company can fluctuate a lot and can be worryingly close enough to 50% a lot of the time. Anyone have a clue about the others?

Yeah the examiner has stopped putting the pass rate in his reports for Company. The last one was April 2014 with 52% but the one before that was 78% so take what you want from that.

EU had a 81% pass rate the last sitting and is usually in the 70's.

I don't know for certain about Criminal but it seems to have a very high pass rate just based on what others have said on here.

I've no idea about Contract though.

hullaballoo

In relation to company, I would imagine that the apparent unlimited capacity for corporate contracts will be a hot topic for any examiners since the 2014 Act became live for exam purposes.

Although it won't have the same application, ultra vires is still an important doctrine and won't be simply legislated away. I would think that examiners will typically ask how the doctrine will apply under the new companies regime etc.

Also, the precise differences between company types and the means of changing from one to another is likely to come up, in my view.

I would always think that is a good tactic to cover what look like major changes because the impact is unknown as yet, so it provides an opportunity to make some arguments around what might happen. It also shouldn't take that long to cover study-wise as there are almost no cases on these points, just some observational articles from professionals and academics.

Another area that should be examined is the transitional provisions (or lack thereof, more so) in the Act. Think about constitutional issues that could arise regarding more stringent penalties under the new act and retrospective effect etc.

I could be wrong but I'd have thought that sort of thing should be relatively fishy barrelly shooty.

HappySlappy123

kiwi33 wrote: »

I would do injunctions - same questions come and always a question on some of them. One year it was even asked twice!

Cheers Kiwi! Would I need to cover all injunctions or would I get away with cutting down a bit?

kiwi33

do they take legislation if it has a solicitors firm name or stamp on it. Work has the new companies act but they have put there name on it.

kiwi33

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

Looking at doing the following for equity:
SP
Rectification
Undue influence
Proprietary estoppel
3 certainties/Strong v Bird
Charitable trusts
Resulting trusts
Trusteeship

Working off a grid that's a couple years old so a push in the right direction would be appreciated if it's felt it's needed, cheers

I would do injunctions - same questions come and always a question on some of them. One year it was even asked twice!

oraghabd

Doing criminal, company, EU and contract, does anyone know what the pass rate is like?

I think the company can fluctuate a lot and can be worryingly close enough to 50% a lot of the time. Anyone have a clue about the others?

HappySlappy123

Looking at doing the following for equity:
SP
Rectification
Undue influence
Proprietary estoppel
3 certainties/Strong v Bird
Charitable trusts
Resulting trusts
Trusteeship

Working off a grid that's a couple years old so a push in the right direction would be appreciated if it's felt it's needed, cheers

Mileyt

Hi
No ultra vires still applies to the Dac companies...there is a chapter on it. I will leave out examinership ...I'm working off new book ï¿¼ thanks

sunshine and showers

makemecrazy wrote: »

Seem to be covering a CRAZY amount!! Why are you doing Ultra Vires, that is gone under the Company Act 2014..? Are you using an old manual? Examinership is very rare too

In fairness, Ultra Vires isn't gone under the Company Law Act 2014. It no longer applies to private companies limited by shares, meaning it won't likely be a feature of the exams now. That said, we don't know if DACs are likely to be examined or not.

Examinerships are incredibly rarely asked. Receivership did come up last time, though, and it's a rare one too!

makemecrazy

Mileyt wrote: »

Company law
I'm covering the following: would love to cut some out if anyone heard hints:
Intro
Constitution doc
Slp
Ultra vires
Corporate authority
Directors
Leg control between directors
Restriction
S / h protection
Capital maintenance
Meetings
Borrowing
Receiver ship / examinership / liquidation
Realisation. Corporate assets
Its a lot any body advise what could be left out

Seem to be covering a CRAZY amount!! Why are you doing Ultra Vires, that is gone under the Company Act 2014..? Are you using an old manual? Examinership is very rare too

Mileyt

Company law
I'm covering the following: would love to cut some out if anyone heard hints:
Intro
Constitution doc
Slp
Ultra vires
Corporate authority
Directors
Leg control between directors
Restriction
S / h protection
Capital maintenance
Meetings
Borrowing
Receiver ship / examinership / liquidation
Realisation. Corporate assets
Its a lot any body advise what could be left out

clocks

smeal wrote: »

Guys, just wondering in Contract, what way does the Consumer Protection question usually come up? Is it usually a problem question where you have to scrape through facts and correlate with the Act or can it tend to be an essay focusing in on reform? The manual is so itty gritty!! Contract definitely the most boring out of them all...

AS a problem question it tends to be about the sale go goods and the extent that warranties and conditions can be implied by statute.

Essay questions are about the impact of EU consumer stuff

clocks

Considering the list of both External and Internal examiners, I was struck by the lack of solicitors--all, as far as I can tell, are either academics or Junior Counsel at the Law Library.

First proposition : most solicitors are salaried professionals so they don't have the same freedom to take on other activities that barristers and academics do.

Second proposition : the law library is more engaged with the principled, intellectual end of law, since barristers have to try and forsee how courts might move in the future. Solicitors are more concerned with efficient execution of transactions and getting the basics done right. (This is neccessarily a simplistic characterisation.)

I'm not neccessarily saying this is a bad, thing, the role of the examinations is to test a given standard of knowledge of the law, not any specific to the Solicitors' profesion.

What do people think ?

sunshine and showers

Mileyt wrote: »

Company law
Hi is everyone covering both restriction and disqualification?

Restriction is usually the better bet. Look at disqualification briefly.

oraghabd

DQ very briefly

Mileyt

Company law
Hi is everyone covering both restriction and disqualification?

fe1chancer

kiwi33 wrote: »

I have an old manual for company law. Does anyone know what is the significance now of the 2014 company act. What has changed and what i would need to make sure i know.

The 2014 act has moved about all the sections so the old manual won't be much use also some of the old common law principles have now been added to the new act ie directors duties.

kiwi33

I have an old manual for company law. Does anyone know what is the significance now of the 2014 company act. What has changed and what i would need to make sure i know.

smeal

oraghabd wrote: »

Think the last 2 were PQs so think a 3rd is less likely. Poss essay

And not having that as the most boring. EU by a distance

Thanks a mil! Ugh, glad I have EU under my belt! Don't get too bogged down in the itty gritty and know the general principles of chapters and you'll fly through it

oraghabd

Think the last 2 were PQs so think a 3rd is less likely. Poss essay

And not having that as the most boring. EU by a distance

smeal

Guys, just wondering in Contract, what way does the Consumer Protection question usually come up? Is it usually a problem question where you have to scrape through facts and correlate with the Act or can it tend to be an essay focusing in on reform? The manual is so itty gritty!! Contract definitely the most boring out of them all...