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

Robbie25808 · 08-03-2017 2:29pm

Easements:
Does anyone know what the rule in wheldon v Burrows is?
And if so is it important or does it ever come up?

Lumi77 · 08-03-2017 3:10pm

I have a question please read Constitutonal exam as I am now panicking
Did anyone ignore the private liberty and mainly heabus corpus please.
Just had a look at past papers again and come up in last years.
Thought is more relevant to criminal law
Thank you

OMGWACA · 08-03-2017 3:18pm

Contract night before notes are also up!

Ferry.Man · 08-03-2017 3:29pm

Hi quick question regarding property law:
When doing a question on the systems of land registration do you have to include the equitable principles and the 1707 rules which relates to the transfer of unregistered land? Struggling to get my head around this topic!! thanks!

Dunne1995 · 08-03-2017 3:38pm

Anyone know if the Mahon v Keena case is just that journalists don't have to give up a confidential source?

Redo91 · 08-03-2017 3:40pm

Lumi77 wrote: »

I have a question please read Constitutonal exam as I am now panicking
Did anyone ignore the private liberty and mainly heabus corpus please.
Just had a look at past papers again and come up in last years.
Thought is more relevant to criminal law
Thank you

I noticed heabus corpus coming up too. What topic is that even under?

Gunslinger92 · 08-03-2017 3:47pm

shellbm wrote: »

Would I be crazy to leave out landlord and tenant law for property? Really struggling to get my head around it, my notes for it are over 20 A4 typed pages and I am wondering whether I would be better off knowing other topics in detail rather than spreading myself too thin??

I didn't study it and I had a choice of questions when I sat property.. you'd probably be okay so long as you had enough other topics prepared. That said I don't think it came up last sitting so it may be due an appearance?

ArthurDayne · 08-03-2017 3:55pm

hey this is pretty daft but if anyone has the Tort October 2016 paper in front of them, I was looking at question 3 and wondering if that's considered vicarious liability or is it more a general negligence/public authority question?

Lumi77 · 08-03-2017 4:00pm

Redo91 wrote: »

I noticed heabus corpus coming up too. What topic is that even under?

Liberty

annmc882 · 08-03-2017 4:04pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

hey this is pretty daft but if anyone has the Tort October 2016 paper in front of them, I was looking at question 3 and wondering if that's considered vicarious liability or is it more a general negligence/public authority question?

Not Vic anyways

CP92 · 08-03-2017 4:06pm

Hey guys, just in relation to criminal, which defences are the most important to cover? Are there any which I can leave out? Thanks

Redo91 · 08-03-2017 4:07pm

Lumi77 wrote: »

Liberty

There's no mention of it at all in my manual. Would that be under freedom of assembly and association or unenumerated rights.

Lumi77 · 08-03-2017 4:10pm

Redo91 wrote: »

There's no mention of it at all in my manual. Would that be under freedom of assembly and association or unenumerated rights.

No, personal liberty is art 40.4.1 applies to bail arrest detention position of prisoners heabus corpus

graduate555 · 08-03-2017 4:11pm

Redo91 wrote: »

There's no mention of it at all in my manual. Would that be under freedom of assembly and association or unenumerated rights.

It's in my manual, it's literally just a paragraph with 3 cases. Main case is State (McDonagh) v Frawley. It's not an unenumerated right - it's in the liberty article 40.4, it's just not called habeas corpus

Bayb12 · 08-03-2017 4:12pm

:P

annmc882 wrote: »

Not Vic anyways

False imprisonment. It is mentioned he is a council worker but it says advise against bob so probably wouldn't need to bring in vicarious

laurenburne · 08-03-2017 5:09pm

annmc882 wrote: »

Not Vic anyways

I see it as a false imprisonment question ..you could possibly mention trespass ( which could lead to contributory negligence under civil liability) and vicarious liability as Bob was an employee of the council. so could get into was he working under course/scope of his employment.

Mainly I see false imprisonment though ...I could be wrong but that's what I would launch into.

I'm feeling the nerves now.

Robbie25808 · 08-03-2017 6:50pm

Hey for property I am studying:
About Property
Equity and Notice
Systems of Land Registration
Succession
Co-Ownership
Licence and Rights of Residence
Family Property
Easements
Adverse Possession
Landlord and Tenant Law

Do you think this is enough for the exam? Really dont like the Mortage chapter!

shellbm · 08-03-2017 7:27pm

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Hey for property I am studying:
About Property
Equity and Notice
Systems of Land Registration
Succession
Co-Ownership
Licence and Rights of Residence
Family Property
Easements
Adverse Possession
Landlord and Tenant Law

Do you think this is enough for the exam? Really dont like the Mortage chapter!

Hey, I asked this yesterday and couple pages back except I didn't do Equity and Notice or Licenses and Right of residence - I did do mortgages. The general response was that it was enough to have choice in the paper

ArthurDayne · 08-03-2017 7:47pm

laurenburne wrote: »

I see it as a false imprisonment question ..you could possibly mention trespass ( which could lead to contributory negligence under civil liability) and vicarious liability as Bob was an employee of the council. so could get into was he working under course/scope of his employment.

Mainly I see false imprisonment though ...I could be wrong but that's what I would launch into.

I'm feeling the nerves now.

Yeah to be honest I feel just prepared enough to do well provided the paper is reasonably forgiving. All it will take is a couple of curveballs and I'll be falling apart ha

LegalLaaaaady · 08-03-2017 8:46pm

Does anyone have tips for identifying Tort PQs? I'm finding it extremely difficult to do so and have come at odds with the examiners reports with almost every broadly based question!

Any help is really appreciated! Thanks

the great communicator · 08-03-2017 8:48pm

LegalLaaaaady wrote: »

Does anyone have tips for identifying Tort PQs? I'm finding it extremely difficult to do so and have come at odds with the examiners reports with almost every broadly based question!

Any help is really appreciated! Thanks

Read the last bit carefully when he asks you to to advise or if there's a duty already established etc. Some of them are very vague but it seems he gives marks for any logical argument

laurenburne · 08-03-2017 9:26pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yeah to be honest I feel just prepared enough to do well provided the paper is reasonably forgiving. All it will take is a couple of curveballs and I'll be falling apart ha

Yeah me too. If I go in and see questions on occupiers liability, state authority liability, fire, damages, solicitor negligence and employer liability it will be the end for me.

the great communicator · 08-03-2017 9:39pm

laurenburne wrote: »

Yeah me too. If I go in and see questions on occupiers liability, state authority liability, fire, damages, solicitor negligence and employer liability it will be the end for me.

Don't worry that'd be the end for 90% of candidates including myself.

laurenburne · 08-03-2017 9:50pm

the great communicator wrote: »

Don't worry that'd be the end for 90% of candidates including myself.

You have me a good laugh reading that. I hope so haha. This time is the worst. Wondering when to call it a night before you've no time left in the morning haha

ArthurDayne · 08-03-2017 11:18pm

laurenburne wrote: »

You have me a good laugh reading that. I hope so haha. This time is the worst. Wondering when to call it a night before you've no time left in the morning haha

Yea I didn't look over any of those except employer liability --- just kinda looked at it in conjunction with vicarious liability.

For Limitations - have people just learned off an essay ? Seems to be an essay question. I'd prefer to avoid the essays if possible because my brain can't take much academic stuff but it seems inevitable limitations will appea in some form

Supermax1988 · 08-03-2017 11:23pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

For Limitations - have people just learned off an essay ? Seems to be an essay question. I'd prefer to avoid the essays if possible because my brain can't take much academic stuff but it seems inevitable limitations will appea in some form

I just learned the legislation and I have a handful of cases. It seems to have only ever come up as an essay question. I don't want to have to do an essay question if I can help it but it's a nice one to have in the locker if I get caught out with the problem questions.

the great communicator · 09-03-2017 12:03am

I got into bed, out of nowhere I got the thought that the defenses to rylands was coming up and now I'm downstairs learning off that part of the chapter. These exams do funny things to your mind.

ArthurDayne · 09-03-2017 1:07am

Good luck tomorrow later everyone -- and may the odds be ever in your favour!

Becks63976 · 09-03-2017 9:20am

Hi, could someone please help me out with question 4 on the autumn2015 constitutional paper. I just cannot seem to get my head around what it is asking.
Thanks in advance

shellbm · 09-03-2017 10:35am

Becks63976 wrote: »

Hi, could someone please help me out with question 4 on the autumn2015 constitutional paper. I just cannot seem to get my head around what it is asking.
Thanks in advance

Personally I would approach that as a question asking about Freedom of Expression, possibly mentioning the right to earn a livelihood being affected? Also I would mentioned Article 15.2, no authority other than the oireachtas has power to make law.

shellbm · 09-03-2017 10:38am

shellbm wrote: »

Personally I would approach that as a question asking about Freedom of Expression, possibly mentioning the right to earn a livelihood being affected? Also I would mentioned Article 15.2, no authority other than the oireachtas has power to make law.

Just checked the examiner report, he mentioned he right to livelihood was somewhat irrelevant as the ban did not prevent him from practicing...

Robbie25808 · 09-03-2017 1:24pm

What is the story with legislation.
Can we highlight?
Can we tab the pages?

Do we have to and it in the day before and if so where and what times?

Thanks

Ferry.Man · 09-03-2017 1:27pm

Robbie25808 wrote: »

What is the story with legislation.
Can we highlight?
Can we tab the pages?

Do we have to and it in the day before and if so where and what times?

Thanks

Ya you can highlight and tab it! And you can hand it in the day before up to 1 o clock or the morning of the exam but if you hand it in on the morning you wont get it for about 30 min or an hour into the exam!!

Gunslinger92 · 09-03-2017 1:38pm

Hope tort went well lads!

odwyer94 · 09-03-2017 1:45pm

Tort wasn't too bad! Happy enough with the paper. Not certain I passed but made a reasonable enough stab at five questions at least.

Robbie25808 · 09-03-2017 2:09pm

The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 contains a number of significant reforms for the private rented
sector in Ireland, in particular in the area of security of tenure and tenancy termination
procedures. Consider whether the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 has succeeded in its aim of
providing a clear legislative framework for tenancy obligations for landlords and tenants in Ireland.
Critically discuss this statement with reference to case law.

Anybody know any cases for a question like this? There are none in the manuals which I have!

laurenburne · 09-03-2017 2:16pm

odwyer94 wrote: »

Tort wasn't too bad! Happy enough with the paper. Not certain I passed but made a reasonable enough stab at five questions at least.

I feel the exact same. I was initially happy when I came out because I was able to make a stab at five questions but now I'm not feeling it as much.

Was that a question on vicarious liability? It confused me.

odwyer94 · 09-03-2017 2:33pm

laurenburne wrote: »

I feel the exact same. I was initially happy when I came out because I was able to make a stab at five questions but now I'm not feeling it as much.

Was that a question on vicarious liability? It confused me.

I think if you came out of the exam happy it's a good sign, you're probably just overanalysing it now!

I'm not sure. That was the question that confused me and I likely went down on. I originally thought it was vicarious liability but then I decided it wasnt and just talked about standard of duty instead. Probably not correct though.

the great communicator · 09-03-2017 2:52pm

odwyer94 wrote: »

I think if you came out of the exam happy it's a good sign, you're probably just overanalysing it now!

I'm not sure. That was the question that confused me and I likely went down on. I originally thought it was vicarious liability but then I decided it wasnt and just talked about standard of duty instead. Probably not correct though.

It was definitely on standard of care but vicarious was relevant because the coach was an employee of the school.
It's the perfect example of a question where he writes in the exam reports "most achieved a passing grade but few excelled". So wouldn't worry about it

shellbm · 09-03-2017 3:22pm

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

graduate555 · 09-03-2017 3:28pm

the great communicator wrote: »

It was definitely on standard of care but vicarious was relevant because the coach was an employee of the school.
It's the perfect example of a question where he writes in the exam reports "most achieved a passing grade but few excelled". So wouldn't worry about it

In one or two past papers I'm sure he mentioned that a certain problem scenario offered a wide scope to deal with a number of issues. I tried out vicarious, switched to standard of care, then threw in waiver. I feel like it was open to interpretation, I went way way over time compared to the other questions so I doubt he expected anyone to address all potential issues

Bayb12 · 09-03-2017 3:30pm

graduate555 wrote: »

In one or two past papers I'm sure he mentioned that a certain problem scenario offered a wide scope to deal with a number of issues. I tried out vicarious, switched to standard of care, then threw in waiver. I feel like it was open to interpretation, I went way way over time compared to the other questions so I doubt he expected anyone to address all potential issues

Did anyone say it was omissions/affirmative duties?

OMGWACA · 09-03-2017 3:32pm

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

Definitely sit it, you'd be silly not to. What do you have to lose by sitting it? You will be amazed at what you remember and what comes back to you. Have faith in yourself! Best thing to do I find is not look at any notes for the half hour beforehand, then when you look at the paper all the info in your brain is on a level pegging, no one piece of information is more important than another. That way, you'll open the paper and everything will be much clearer for you! Relax and all your hard work over the last few weeks/months will pay off! But definitely sit it, you've paid for it, you may as well, and you will absolutely surprise yourself!

amomcnico91 · 09-03-2017 3:36pm

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I read his exam reports and he tends to indicate that there is a high pass rate. 70% is what I've heard. Honestly, sit it. I've passed 7/8 of these exams and I can honestly say I've never felt prepared going into any of them. I'm sitting the exam tomorrow too, and I'm very nervous. A little bit of self belief goes a long way. You have loads of time to read over everything.
Best of Luck.

laurenburne · 09-03-2017 3:38pm

odwyer94 wrote: »

I think if you came out of the exam happy it's a good sign, you're probably just overanalysing it now!

I'm not sure. That was the question that confused me and I likely went down on. I originally thought it was vicarious liability but then I decided it wasnt and just talked about standard of duty instead. Probably not correct though.

Thanks a mil. I really hope I did enough to pass and I'm done with these exams. I really feel like I could come out with 47 or something silly.

I had the same the problem. I launched into vicarious liability and then I was like..this could be duty of care and standard of care...or causation so then I launched into that and had no time for conclusion so my answer was quite messy

Oh well...Im on a boosy lunch now hoping to god I'm going to blackhall in september

anosullivan · 09-03-2017 3:44pm

laurenburne wrote: »

Thanks a mil. I really hope I did enough to pass and I'm done with these exams. I really feel like I could come out with 47 or something silly.

I had the same the problem. I launched into vicarious liability and then I was like..this could be duty of care and standard of care...or causation so then I launched into that and had no time for conclusion so my answer was quite messy

Oh well...Im on a boosy lunch now hoping to god I'm going to blackhall in september

Ugh I'm kicking myself I didn't mention the school I just kept saying Peter and didn't even conclude. I had 3 decent questions and 2 very questionable. I found the paper very restrictive- all the essays were tough! Between that and hearing tort is marked very hard im losing faith...

Lumi77 · 09-03-2017 3:44pm

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I feel the same and I felt confident yesterday. So much to remember...
Despite studying 8 hrs a day since November.
I'll sit and what will be will be at this stage just sick of it and have 3 more to go.
Head up and good luck

the great communicator · 09-03-2017 3:49pm

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I know so many people doing these exams and I haven't heard of one failing constitutional, I've heard you can come out of it confused and thinking you've failed alright but I honestly haven't heard of one fail, I even know people who've failed criminal but never constitutional or property

odwyer94 · 09-03-2017 3:53pm

shellbm wrote: »

Literally feel like I know nothing for constitutional despite studying for months. Is there any indication of the pass rate? SO tempted not to sit it

I really think you should sit it.

I went into the exam today thinking I was 100% going to fail, wasn't even going to bother sitting it but I paid for the train up so I said I might as well. And I'm really glad I did because of the 22 topics in Tort I only had a bare knowledge of about 10 and 6 of those came up on the paper. So you really don't know how it will pan out on the day.

Plus, constitutional seems to have a reasonably high pass rate and seems like something you can bull**** on a bit, I dunno, that's what I'm hoping anyway! I'm in the exact same boat as you just more optimistic after being very lucky with the Tort exam today. Might as well sit it!

ArthurDayne · 09-03-2017 4:05pm

I absolutely spewed negligence / vicarious for Q1 which took me way too long. Overall 3 decent answers i though, 1 not great but got some case law and the main principles in ......and then a ridiculously bad essay on damages which I don't know if he'll even bother reading ha. Really hope I pass ...

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

Comments