FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

godfather2 · 11-08-2020 3:24pm

Louis Litt wrote: »

Anyone know what kind of a marker they are for Tort? any stories of ppl coming out with the pass after a couple of poor questons

Very hard to predict but fair if that helps. I'll be back in the revision tonight as don't think I got there this time. Feel like I'm in the mid 40s. 8wks and back to swing again for me. Liked the topics but struggled to remember my case law.

11-08-2020 3:25pm

MrAlex123 wrote: »

Word of caution for any FE1 'first timers'-- a few of the top firms only accept trainees who complete all FE1s within a certain number of sittings (e.g. 3). Worth bearing in mind when planning your topics for October as today is likely to count as 1/3 of your sittings! Wish someone had told me this when I started

What! I’ve never heard that!

Very harsh especially now they’ve gotten rid of the magic 3 rule I thought that would take the pressure off!

godfather2 · 11-08-2020 3:30pm

JCormac wrote: »

I feel like a lot of those questions had multiple possible routes you could have taken.

Like Nervous Shock or Wilkinson or Employer Liability for the question on yer one in the office.

Or the tort of Nuisance or Negligence for the guy who couldn't stop smoking. Maybe it was just me that said Negligence. Oof[/QUOTE

I said negligence as well. I ran through nuisance and said might not apply as not a substantial period of time as had moved in a few weeks ago and, started throwing them on the green, better chance of recovery under negligence

Lallers96 · 11-08-2020 3:31pm

I've heard from people in law firms that it looks bad if you take longer than 2 years to do the FE1s. So that's 4 sittings, 5 if you include this week. That was on an advisory night organised by the law soc in NUIG and they were opinions of people from A&L Goodbody.

Lallers96 · 11-08-2020 3:32pm

We got "called out" by a well known advisor on the FE1s haha, full on called regular posters on boards.ie spoofers

Lallers96 · 11-08-2020 3:39pm

MrAlex123 wrote: »

Excuse my brevity, but who is 'we', what do you mean 'called out', what/who is a 'well known advisor on the FE1s"? Thanks

We as in regular posters on boards.ie and by called out I mean, called spoofers and that reading and following threads on boards.ie is a bad idea, and regular posters do not have your best interests at heart, especially people sitting the same exam as you.

The well known advisor is someone on instagram, and has done very well in the FE1s in the past. If you don't know off the bat who it is from that then I don't think you know of them, in which case it's pointless information.

Nothing wrong with what she said, I just found it funny really and I disagree with it

ihatethesea · 11-08-2020 3:43pm

My God I don't think I would have passed some of my FE1's without fellow Boards posters haha!

MrAlex123 · 11-08-2020 3:44pm

Lallers96 wrote: »

We as in regular posters on boards.ie and by called out I mean, called spoofers and that reading and following threads on boards.ie is a bad idea, and regular posters do not have your best interests at heart, especially people sitting the same exam as you.

The well known advisor is someone on instagram, and has done very well in the FE1s in the past. If you don't know off the bat who it is from that then I don't think you know of them, in which case it's pointless information.

Nothing wrong with what she said, I just found it funny really and I disagree with it

Gotcha thanks! Sounds like a Hero.

godfather2 · 11-08-2020 3:45pm

Good luck to one and all for Thursday, going to bow out of here so the posts are all entirely EU based for a bit. Best of luck lads.

iamanengine · 11-08-2020 3:45pm

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Predictions???

No real predictions, just cover the usual suspects -

Institutions
Direct Effect/MS Liability
General Principles
Citizenship
Goods
Workers
Judicial Review
Competition

iamanengine · 11-08-2020 3:52pm

Lallers96 wrote: »

We as in regular posters on boards.ie and by called out I mean, called spoofers and that reading and following threads on boards.ie is a bad idea, and regular posters do not have your best interests at heart, especially people sitting the same exam as you.

The well known advisor is someone on instagram, and has done very well in the FE1s in the past. If you don't know off the bat who it is from that then I don't think you know of them, in which case it's pointless information.

Nothing wrong with what she said, I just found it funny really and I disagree with it

Lol, I just checked insta and seen the video

Think she is so wrong, this thread has been a massive help to me personally and to suggest people intentionally put up incorrect information is really unfair. I always do my best to help others and feel I've been treated similarly. It's a nice community on here and people genuinely look out for each other, in my experience.

Y'all are great x

channing90 · 11-08-2020 3:56pm

Lallers96 wrote: »

We got "called out" by a well known advisor on the FE1s haha, full on called regular posters on boards.ie spoofers

That was an embarrassing call out from her, I have Found this forum very helpful and the first time I sat the fe1s I wasn’t looking at this And I failed, loads of very nice helpful people on this forum.

EmmaO94 · 11-08-2020 3:57pm

MrAlex123 wrote: »

Word of caution for any FE1 'first timers'-- a few of the top firms only accept trainees who complete all FE1s within a certain number of sittings (e.g. 3). Worth bearing in mind when planning your topics for October as today is likely to count as 1/3 of your sittings! Wish someone had told me this when I started

To be honest I've never heard this before! I have a TC at a top 10 firm and number of sittings wasn't discussed at all - nor was it mentioned in any other TC applications I filled in, incl top tier firms (and I did a LOT!) I don't think it's something worth stressing over really in the grand scheme of things, from anecdotal evidence it's not something that's commonly brought up :-)

EmmaO94 · 11-08-2020 4:00pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Lol, I just checked insta and seen the video

Think she is so wrong, this thread has been a massive help to me personally and to suggest people intentionally put up incorrect information is really unfair. I always do my best to help others and feel I've been treated similarly. It's a nice community on here and people genuinely look out for each other, in my experience.

Y'all are great x

Would anyone be willing to divulge her name, be it by PM?!

Wonderstruck · 11-08-2020 4:03pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What! I’ve never heard that!
Very harsh especially now they’ve gotten rid of the magic 3 rule I thought that would take the pressure off!

God could law get any more elitest! I think I might change my location to "spoofing on boards" as I'm a semi pro after 10 years.

MrAlex123 · 11-08-2020 4:04pm

EmmaO94 wrote: »

To be honest I've never heard this before! I have a TC at a top 10 firm and number of sittings wasn't discussed at all - nor was it mentioned in any other TC applications I filled in, incl top tier firms (and I did a LOT!) I don't think it's something worth stressing over really in the grand scheme of things, from anecdotal evidence it's not something that's commonly brought up :-)

It wasn't included in any of the TC applications I completed either. But it is an express clause in my TC!

Defo not something to stress over, but certainly something to be cognisant of going forward

IgoPAP · 11-08-2020 4:06pm

MrAlex123 wrote: »

It wasn't included in any of the TC applications I completed either. But it is an express clause in my TC!

Defo not something to stress over, but certainly something to be cognisant of going forward

Does it apply retrospectively or only going forward? I'll have done 3 sittings before I graduate

Wonderstruck · 11-08-2020 4:09pm

IgoPAP wrote: »

Does it apply retrospectively or only going forward? I'll have done 3 sittings before I graduate

That's pretty amazing three sittings before you graduate!!! I began them 2 years after graduating!

MrAlex123 · 11-08-2020 4:10pm

IgoPAP wrote: »

Does it apply retrospectively or only going forward? I'll have done 3 sittings before I graduate

I am so sorry I haven't a clue! Seriously can't imagine them applying it retrospectively to college students - they'd only be delighted to have someone like you who's tackling these exams while in college!

Seziertisch · 11-08-2020 4:10pm

Anyone thinking they might have to resit Tort, I’d recommend checking out Val Corbett’s Tort Cases in a Nutshell. I got gifted a copy and found it so good that I used it instead of the manual for most of my exam prep.

The layout and writing is vastly superior to the manual I had been using, providing a lot more useful information in a lot less space.

nmurphy1441 · 11-08-2020 4:11pm

iamanengine wrote: »

No real predictions, just cover the usual suspects -

Institutions
Direct Effect/MS Liability
General Principles
Citizenship
Goods
Workers
Judicial Review
Competition

I’m hoping for a nice set of case notes but not banking on them

IgoPAP · 11-08-2020 4:11pm

Wonderstruck wrote: »

That's pretty amazing three sittings before you graduate!!! I began them 2 years after graduating!

Thanks! Although it wouldn't be too amazing if it turned that I could get rejected because I already did 3 sittings with only a few subjects each.

Hamerzan Sickles · 11-08-2020 4:22pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Lol, I just checked insta and seen the video

Think she is so wrong, this thread has been a massive help to me personally and to suggest people intentionally put up incorrect information is really unfair. I always do my best to help others and feel I've been treated similarly. It's a nice community on here and people genuinely look out for each other, in my experience.

Y'all are great x

For what it's worth, I've passed like three exams basing my revision the night before the exam solely on iamanengine's predictions so boards has been a pretty massive help to me.

I think the person we are referencing about might be trying to do a bit of inverse marketing by deterring people from browsing here for information. :rolleyes:

Wonderstruck · 11-08-2020 4:37pm

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

For what it's worth, I've passed like three exams basing my revision the night before the exam solely on iamanengine's predictions so boards has been a pretty massive help to me.

I think the person we are referencing about might be trying to do a bit of inverse marketing by deterring people from browsing here for information. :rolleyes:

Yeah like obviously none of us are lecturers, we are only saying what we know. I remember I didn't know an 18 year old could witness a will qnd I was like no way (still makes 0 sense to me they can - sorry guys). >.<;

I have honestly seen your questions here, and while studying another subject, got the textbook off the library shelf and checked the answers. I do it in the hope that they'll be some good karma for me in the future. I've literally passed all 8 and I'm still chilling here. I've definitely met people IRL who would rip pages out of law books to sabotage others but I post here in good faith none of you guys would do that. I was gonna say we should meet for pints / non alcoholic substitutions again but then I was like oh wait..........

JCormac · 11-08-2020 5:04pm

Healyjhow wrote: »

Don’t even want to post mortem that paper I really feeling I was grasping at straws ... all my case law knowledge just disintegrated and got stuck with two essay questions I couldn’t even re read cause I had the fear of my life hahahah anyone want to share what their studying for EU so I can attempt to redeem myself ?

Exactly the same. Was reciting every case and statute perfectly before the exam, pure Rainman style.

In the exam I think I remembered a sixth of what I studied. Be lucky if I was scraping 5 cases a question. Just the luck of the draw on the day I guess.

Lots of people are probably in the same boat, so wouldn't stress too much.

Hoping for questions in the follow areas:

General Principles (Essay)
Direct effect & Member State liability
Judicial Review (Essay)
FMG (Art 34 or Art 30 & 110)
FMW (and maybe Citizenship)

lawgrad49 · 11-08-2020 5:44pm

JCormac wrote: »

Exactly the same. Was reciting every case and statute perfectly before the exam, pure Rainman style.

In the exam I think I remembered a sixth of what I studied. Be lucky if I was scraping 5 cases a question. Just the luck of the draw on the day I guess.

Lots of people are probably in the same boat, so wouldn't stress too much.

Hoping for questions in the follow areas:

General Principles (Essay)
Direct effect & Member State liability
Judicial Review (Essay)
FMG (Art 34 or Art 30 & 110)
FMW (and maybe Citizenship)

Same here, was very happy with what I'd covered going in (think I counted I had 20 topics in total and could rhyme off relevant case law) but a few of them problem questions just threw me! Found myself rushing and waffling through answers because I spent so long trying to work out what the question was asking for. Ah well, it's all a learning experience!

I think EU will be more straightforward in terms of identifying the questions anyway. Hoping for similar topics myself!

hullaballoo · 11-08-2020 5:50pm

Firstly, congrats to all who sat Tort today and I advise against post mortems generally but particularly if you don't feel great about the exam. Tort is one of those areas where there are many right answers as well as many wrong ones and is notoriously difficult. I think the examiners reports pretty much always say that the majority of candidates do not correctly identify all issues/torts. That doesn't mean a fail on its own so you can miss things and still pass. Of course you can sure if it were any other way there'd be no passes tbh.

Just to set the record straight on the "call out" -

I read this thread daily and have done all my professional life (BL with 10+ PQE) and I do so partially to ensure the quality of advice/guidance/legal discussion is up to scratch. Other lawyers on the forum do too. I don't think I have ever noticed anyone trying to lead others astray.

But if it did happen, it would be "called out" straight away - that's how this site/internet discussions work. The best way to get the right answer on the internet is to post something incorrect!

Aoibhin511 · 11-08-2020 6:11pm

Am i right in saying that preliminary reference and infringement procedure has never come up under this examiner?

iamanengine · 11-08-2020 6:16pm

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Am i right in saying that preliminary reference and infringement procedure has never come up under this examiner?

Prelim reference came up in March 2019, that's the only time. Infringement hasn't I don't think. Supremacy hasn't either

Aoibhin511 · 11-08-2020 6:23pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Prelim reference came up in March 2019, that's the only time. Infringement hasn't I don't think. Supremacy hasn't either

Ah completely missed that, thank you!

htnor · 11-08-2020 7:02pm

iamanengine wrote: »

Prelim reference came up in March 2019, that's the only time. Infringement hasn't I don't think. Supremacy hasn't either

What q was prelim reference in March 2019? Must be losing it just can’t seem to see it ðŸ˜‚

iamanengine · 11-08-2020 7:22pm

htnor wrote: »

What q was prelim reference in March 2019? Must be losing it just can’t seem to see it &#55357;&#56834;

I don't actually have access to the paper itself but my grid says Q3

sunnylegal · 11-08-2020 7:22pm

Would anyone mind sending me ANY of the last 6 years of exam papers for EU ? My notes only go to 2013 - I know last minute AF, I'm really stuck. Even just one hahaha

Thanks a mil.

Aoibhin511 · 11-08-2020 7:29pm

iamanengine wrote: »

I don't actually have access to the paper itself but my grid says Q3

Hmm I would say q3 was just about standing am i missing something??

QUESTION THREE March 19

When Advocate General Jacobs stated in paragraph 103 of his own Opinion on Case C-50/2000, UPA v Council, that:
“[…] and individual should be regarded as individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by a Community measure where, by reason of his particular circumstances, the measure has, or is liable to have, a substantial adverse effect on his interests”
he was clearly articulating that there was a lack of effective judicial protection for non-privileged applicants who sought a judicial review of acts of the European Union’s institutions.
Explain briefly the concerns that Advocate General was addressing here. Also, make an assessment of whether these concerns have been fully addressed by the changes that were made to Article 230 EC by the Lisbon Treaty and now contained in Article 263 TFEU and/or any developments that may have come from the related case law of the Union Judicature on this matter, and in particular the case-law interpreting the new post-Lisbon fourth paragraph to Article 263 TFEU.

Aoibhin511 · 11-08-2020 7:29pm

sunnylegal wrote: »

Would anyone mind sending me ANY of the last 6 years of exam papers for EU ? My notes only go to 2013 - I know last minute AF, I'm really stuck. Even just one hahaha

Thanks a mil.

Yeah dm me your email

sunnylegal · 11-08-2020 7:31pm

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Yeah dm me your email

Thank you SO SO much, I really appreciate it.

iamanengine · 11-08-2020 7:35pm

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Hmm I would say q3 was just about standing am i missing something??

QUESTION THREE March 19

When Advocate General Jacobs stated in paragraph 103 of his own Opinion on Case C-50/2000, UPA v Council, that:
“[…] and individual should be regarded as individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by a Community measure where, by reason of his particular circumstances, the measure has, or is liable to have, a substantial adverse effect on his interests”
he was clearly articulating that there was a lack of effective judicial protection for non-privileged applicants who sought a judicial review of acts of the European Union’s institutions.
Explain briefly the concerns that Advocate General was addressing here. Also, make an assessment of whether these concerns have been fully addressed by the changes that were made to Article 230 EC by the Lisbon Treaty and now contained in Article 263 TFEU and/or any developments that may have come from the related case law of the Union Judicature on this matter, and in particular the case-law interpreting the new post-Lisbon fourth paragraph to Article 263 TFEU.

Yep that seems pretty clearly to be about judicial review to me. So it seems you can't trust sample answers or grids these days :rolleyes:

htnor · 11-08-2020 7:38pm

Aoibhin511 wrote: »

Hmm I would say q3 was just about standing am i missing something??

QUESTION THREE March 19

When Advocate General Jacobs stated in paragraph 103 of his own Opinion on Case C-50/2000, UPA v Council, that:
“[…] and individual should be regarded as individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by a Community measure where, by reason of his particular circumstances, the measure has, or is liable to have, a substantial adverse effect on his interests”
he was clearly articulating that there was a lack of effective judicial protection for non-privileged applicants who sought a judicial review of acts of the European Union’s institutions.
Explain briefly the concerns that Advocate General was addressing here. Also, make an assessment of whether these concerns have been fully addressed by the changes that were made to Article 230 EC by the Lisbon Treaty and now contained in Article 263 TFEU and/or any developments that may have come from the related case law of the Union Judicature on this matter, and in particular the case-law interpreting the new post-Lisbon fourth paragraph to Article 263 TFEU.

Yeah you’re right Q3 according to examiner report was on Art 263 and effective judicial protection and locus standi.

I was getting freaked there thinking my grid was wrong and as prelim reference hasn’t come up in years! I feel like it’s one of the most notable EU topics tho I don’t get why it’s not more of a popular q.

iamanengine · 11-08-2020 7:43pm

Apologies guys!!

I wouldn't want to be seen as intentionally giving out incorrect information...

JCormac · 11-08-2020 7:47pm

Does anybody have a condensed summary/notes on the changes Lisbon has made to Institutions that are crammable?

I don't have a whole lot on EU that I can swap but can swap what I have & will owe you a pint our paths cross in Blackhall

DFMCD190384 · 11-08-2020 9:23pm

JCormac wrote: »

Does anybody have a condensed summary/notes on the changes Lisbon has made to Institutions that are crammable?

I don't have a whole lot on EU that I can swap but can swap what I have & will owe you a pint our paths cross in Blackhall

I would love these also....please

Healyjhow · 11-08-2020 9:29pm

When looking at direct effect problem questions .... is indirect effect only to be addressed with failure to correctly transpose the directive ? Direct effect would only need to be addressed if it was just failure to implement on time?

Hamerzan Sickles · 11-08-2020 11:12pm

I've been studying for EU for weeks and I feel like I know absolutely nothing. Tomorrow is going to be a long day.

Hamerzan Sickles · 11-08-2020 11:13pm

JCormac wrote: »

Does anybody have a condensed summary/notes on the changes Lisbon has made to Institutions that are crammable?

I don't have a whole lot on EU that I can swap but can swap what I have & will owe you a pint our paths cross in Blackhall

? I think that Lisbon literally implemented the TEU and the TFEU so on a technicality anything that is found in either of those in relation to Lisbon is a change made to the Institutions.

yipyop · 11-08-2020 11:32pm

Hey, does anyone have anything on 'equivalence' and 'practical possibility' or how to go about answering that question? March 2017 Q2. My notes don't include those as part of general principles.

Have a few useful bits on the whole course if anyone needs them, thanks.

iamanengine · 11-08-2020 11:50pm

JCormac wrote: »

Does anybody have a condensed summary/notes on the changes Lisbon has made to Institutions that are crammable?

I don't have a whole lot on EU that I can swap but can swap what I have & will owe you a pint our paths cross in Blackhall

Main changes - QMV, Charter of fundamental rights, ordinary legislative procedure, increased role of ms parliaments, introduced new test for regulatory acts re judicial review, introduced procedure to leave the EU

I don’t have any specific notes for Lisbon more they are spread out over various topics

Trainee1986 · 12-08-2020 12:34am

Hi everyone, posting this again for anyone else interested before review of applications in the coming weeks. My firm - an established criminal and personal injuries firm located in Dublin 1 - is looking to give an extended internship (at least 6 months) starting September/Oct 2020. This would suit a bright graduate interested in gaining daily court experience and advocacy skills (firm works in all courts from District up to Supreme). This is a hands-on role. Review of applications will begin on 17th August.

Send me a message for more details.

DUMSURFER · 12-08-2020 9:47am

Does anyone have 'Free Movement of Workers' notes for EU that I could beg for?

Can send any and all other notes, sample answers etc to the unbelievably kind people who help out!

iamanengine · 12-08-2020 10:00am

When was the last time equivalence and effectiveness came up? I realllllly don't want to cover it

Aoibhin511 · 12-08-2020 10:16am

iamanengine wrote: »

When was the last time equivalence and effectiveness came up? I realllllly don't want to cover it

October 19 and March 17

FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Comments