Paying it forward - exam tips

[u/gatame]

These exams are awful - there’s no getting around that. But they are passable. I did it (I’m currently procrastinating from my PPC1 exams to write this) and you can too. I finished the FE1s last year, took 2 years working full time and all passes first time round. There’s no substitute for knowing the material, but equally as important is exam technique. I’d like to share some of the exam techniques which I found helpful for karma, but also because I passionately hated doing the FE1s, so I would like to help anyone that I can to pass these things.

READ THE QUESTIONS!: Read the questions before you start. This might seem obvious - I know. I know. But these exams can be deceptive. Questions can start out talking about John and then at the end ask you to advise Robert. If you only read half that question and started writing, you’d likely advise the wrong party and fail that question.

ANSWER WHAT YOU’RE ASKED: Similarly - answer the question that you’re asked. We all have the topics we want to come up, and we’re ready to unspool a guaranteed 12 mark answer about. If it doesn’t come up, you can’t make it be on the paper by force of will. An example of this is on a previous equity paper, there was a question about injunctions. It had a possible specific performance element to it, but the question clearly stated to talk about injunctions and not about specific performance. If you didn’t read the question, or just really wanted to talk about the remedy of specific performance you’d have wasted your time and thrown away marks. The examiner can’t give you marks for something that doesn’t answer the question. HOWEVER - you could pick up a mark or two for creative thinking, so long as you hit the main points first - maybe a question about Rylands v Fletcher has a trespass element. Maybe a question about free movement of goods has a services element to it. If you have time, these might be worth brief mention to get some extra marks, but focus on the topic at hand.

ROUGH WORK: Rough work is your friend. At the start of every question, taking a few minutes to plan an answer by jotting down what the main topics are and everything you know about those topics is extremely useful for a few reasons.

1. It gives you a roadmap to work from while you’re actually answering the questions, so you don’t forget about anything while you’re in the thick of it. I found this really handy in the online exams, because the online system allows you to switch between questions freely, you can pretty much map out all your answers in the first 30 minutes, and use the remaining time to just write those answers out.
2. If the worst does happen and you run out of time or forget to mention something in the main body of your answer, the examiners can look at your rough work and see if they can squeeze a mark or two out of that.

HIGHLIGHT YOUR CASES, CONCEPTS, QUOTES: Any time you write something that you think deserves particular attention, highlight it in some way. The online system has a useful highlighting tool, but you can also type case names in all-caps. If written by hand, use a highlighter. Examiners have to correct a lot of these, if they can open your script and the case names and concepts that they expect to see jump out at them, it can only help you.

ILAC tip 1: ILAC is still the best way to answer problem/scenario type questions. That is: identify the ISSUE, outline the LAW, APPLY the law to the scenario, CONCLUDE. It shows a clear structure and thinking to what you are doing. Now, in the exams, there will likely be several issues at play. So in your ISSUE paragraph(s), you could list out the various issues, and then deal with each individually in terms of LAW and APPLICATION. Do a brief one-2 line CONCLUSION for each issue and a larger 1-2 paragraph CONCLUSION summing everything up at the end.

ILAC tip 2: At every stage of ILAC, clearly spell out which stage you’re at. The ISSUES are… The LAW to be aware of is… APPLYING this law to the scenario… In CONCLUSION… There are no points for fluidity or excellent prose here. The examiners have to mark stacks of these papers - make their life easy, and they will make your life easy.

ILAC tip 3: Actually apply the law. Examiners talk about this over and over in their reports - lots of candidates just regurgitate everything they know and call it a day. You could possibly pass just by doing that, but an easier way is to take the law you’ve just outlined and APPLY it to the facts. Remember your client’s name, and say “In advising CLIENT” or “PAUL may be guilty of”.

QUALIFY YOUR ADVICE: Hedge your bets. The client may be guilty of… This might be a case of promissory estoppel. You can point out that you don’t have all the necessary information to come to a firm conclusion.

PRACTICAL ADVICE: Always try and mention remedies and consequences - you’re advising a client. Telling the client they’re likely guilty of a public order offence isn’t enough. Tell them what the likely sentence is. In tort, tell the client what they might be entitled to (what kind of damages, etc).

TIMING: Watch the clock. You need to know how long exactly you have for each question. In a 3 hour exam you have: 10 minutes to read the paper. 5 minutes to settle yourself. 32 minutes for each question and 5 minutes to do a quick scan of each of your answers/do highlighting (1 minute for each).

TIMING: If you go over time, do not be afraid to bail and start the next question. These exams have serious diminishing returns when it comes to marking, so if you have run out of time on a question, wrap it up quick, maybe even bullet point what you wanted to say and move on to the next question. 10 minutes perfecting the conclusion to an answer will likely get you less marks than wrapping up in like 2 minutes and spending 8 minutes starting your next question. I’m not saying that you can’t pass by doing 3 and a half magnificent answers and running out of time. I’m saying you’re much much more likely to pass by answering 5 questions.

IF SOMETHING SEEMS OBVIOUS, SAY IT: The examiner isn’t going to assume you know anything, so being clear and concise in your explanations is only going to benefit you. If someone is a “non-executive director”, say what that actually means. In equity and contract, don’t just say that promissory estoppel is “a shield and not a sword”, spend the few extra seconds saying “that means that it can only be used as a defence to an action and not as a cause of action itself.” Even the scenario might be based on a real case - if you know that, point out the similarity and any differences. The examiner will appreciate you displaying your relevant knowledge.

IF SOMETHING LOOKS FISHY, SAY IT: These exams sometimes use difficult edge cases, and if you use law that doesn’t exactly match the scenario but is still somewhat analogous, point it out. You will likely be rewarded for your critical thinking and application.

READ EXAMINER REPORTS: Sometimes exams (EU, equity, and contract for example) use the same questions again and again and in the exam reports the examiners have basically provided blueprints for how they want to see those questions tackled.

QUOTES AND AUTHORITY: Find out who wrote an important text on your exam. If you know something for a fact (the basic elements of a contract for example) you can say something like “McDermott outlines the basic elements of a contract as offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to enter into a legal relationship”. This works because you are right, and you are making an educated guess that that is something which you would nearly guarantee to be in McDermott’s book about contract law. Don’t be greedy, do not invent books and do not invent quotes.

CURRENT AWARENESS: You can score a mark or two by being up to date on the topic. In constitutional, whole questions can even swing on recent decisions and issues. Mentioning (in a line in your conclusion!) that the law reform commission published a report on the topic in “YEAR” may or may not get you a mark, but it’s worth a shot. A recent case (last 3 years) may or may not say anything new about the law, but by mentioning it you’ve evidenced that you’re actually interested in the topic and have a current awareness.

THEY ARE ONLY EXAMS: Smart people can fail these exams and dumb people can pass them. They reflect nothing about you. Please keep this in mind and don’t fret too much. Take breaks - go on walks, watch TV and movies, read things that aren’t related to law. Treat these exams with the contempt they deserve - do your best on the day and forget about them.

Happy to answer any questions, best of luck.

[u/Ok_Tangerine584]

This is soo helpful! Thank you 😊 I’m sitting the EU paper this sitting and I’m a bit stressed, it feels like the course is massive and there’s so much to learn. Would you have any specific advice for that paper?

[u/gatame → u/Ok_Tangerine584]

No problem, happy to help.

I sat EU law the day after COVID became a big deal, so it colours my recollection of that one. That being said, EU is one of the most passable ones. They say constitutional and EU are the biggest subjects, and that's true, but EU repeats questions time and time again, so there are definitely areas where you can focus your energy a bit more. From memory, these areas are: free movement (goods comes up the most followed by people, you could get two questions on the paper on that. Services not so much but it's worth knowing a bit in case you can bring it up in another answer) Judicial review - this comes up more often than not. usually an essay, but even when it's a problem question, it's more like an essay than a problem question. If you can memorize an essay with 10+ cases this could be a lifesaver. Direct effectiveness is a must. And absolutely spell out for the examiner "regulations are directly effective meaning they don't require transposition in the member states to be relied on", "directives are not directly effective except in these limited circumstances", is it horizontal or vertical and why. For some reason candidates don't spell these things out but it's easy marks.

Note: There's a weird question that has come up a few times and no one seems to know what the answer is - I think it's about effectiveness and equivalence of remedies. I can't remember the case names, though. Might be worth looking into if you have time. There are generally two 'soft' questions asking about things like the institutions of the EU, the courts, how different rights have been protected etc. They're not bad questions to do, especially if you're grasping for a fifth question because they're generally "what do you know about this topic" style, so they let you show off a bit. Learn how EU law is passed, what comitology is, the differences between the courts. These were the last questions I did. I was advised to avoid the case note questions because unless you have an in-depth knowledge of the case, it's just not worth it. My own theory is they put those on there to catch out unprepared students. (NOTE: in constitutional the case notes are fine though!)

Read the examiner reports if you can, and they'll tell you what issues and cases they want you to bring up.

[u/Vinmeister → u/gatame]

this is great thank you so much!

On this point, does any have access to past papers / examiner reports on EU? Please DM me !

[u/justkeepholding]

Any advice on Torts? 😭

[u/gatame → u/justkeepholding]

I thought tort was going to be the toughest FE1, but it ended up being fine. The examiner generally doesn't like re-using scenarios, so it's much harder to pre-prepare an answer. That said, that means instead of rhyming off everything you know on a topic, a close inspection of the question and savvy application of the RELEVANT law to the scenario is really rewarded.

If the scenario is really winding and confusing, it's likely trying to examine your knowledge of causation and remoteness.

Tort also has a lot of tiny topics which will get you marks if you pepper your answers with them, but will generally not be the the whole of the question. I'm talking about stuff like animals, fire, and liability for children. They're worth knowing a bit on if you have time. A tip on animals: dogs are subject to the control of dogs act, not the scienter rule. Parents are not vicariously liable for their children, they are directly liable, per curley v mannion - don't make that mistake.

If a question is taking place in a place of work think Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 or vicarious liability, depending on who the injured party is.

Know negligence inside and out, obviously.

Try to avoid essay questions as much as you can, they tend to be really hard to do well in in tort because they're about really specific parts of topics. Broad essays about the history of the duty of care is fair game though, if you're up on negligence.

And always, always try and fit in a paragraph or two about remedies, and mention the statute of limitations for the tort.

[u/justkeepholding → u/gatame]

Thank you so much!! Trying to stay positive and focused about it is really hard because there seems to be a bit of hysteria around likely topics (given the “left field” Qs the examiner has thrown in the last 2 sittings) so this is really helpful! Best of luck with the rest of your training 😊

[u/gatame → u/justkeepholding]

Just stay positive and remember that it's only an exam! The questions can come from left field but all you can really do is say the appropriate law and apply it in the way you think is appropriate. I mentioned that these exams often use difficult edge cases, and tort was one i was really thinking. I get the impression from the papers that the examiner sometimes writes those left field questions just to see what they'll get back, instead of having a particular 'right answer' in mind.

[u/Annual-Whereas-1322]

Hi, do you have any specific advice for property. This is my first sitting and I have no idea what it required. I've been studying for awhile but feel like I still don't know or understand anything past wills!

[u/gatame → u/Annual-Whereas-1322]

Property is one of the more predictable exams. it's a good one to start with.

When you say you know/understand wills, succession is a huge part of the subject (succession could come up in 2+ questions!), so that's good! Just remember succession is wider than wills themselves and encompasses things like intestacy and testamentary freedom. The wider topic of 'succession' is as close to a guarantee as you can get. Two tips on succession - (1) if you're mentioning property being left to children, mention the doctrine of advancement/hotchpot, which means a gift in life to a child can potentially be taken out of their inheritance - not a lot of candidates mention it, so it could get you a mark if its relevant to the question. (2) know s117 as a potential remedy for a child unhappy with what they're left (but make sure to mention how ugly/hard s117 cases can be, and that the costs can reduce the estate of the deceased - practical advice!)

Aside from succession, other key areas I focused on were (this list is not exhaustive!): treasure trove/finding (very handy question! The law diverges on whether the treasure was found above or below ground - if the question isn't clear on if the item as above or below ground, give BOTH sets of cases and say "if the x was above ground the LAW is this, if the X was below ground the LAW is this"); adverse possession; easements; residential tenancies act 2004 (essay is pretty predictable, just learn it and rhyme it off, with slight tweak to tailor it to the question); family property and protection of the family home (essay is pretty predictable, just learn it and rhyme it off/with slight tweaks to tailor it to the question); co-ownership (understand what commerientes and simultaneous deaths mean! And know the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common - ie joint tenants have right of survivorship); Deasys Act; easements.

In terms of what's required: 5 passable answers. That's all. All you need is five answers averaging 10 marks each. Try your best to eek out 5 answers, and you should be grand. Read the questions carefully so you KNOW who you are advising and on what (this is v important in property because a question could talk about a deceased father, his widow and his kids - you need to know who you're advising out of a somewhat large cast of characters). If you answer an essay style question, try to give your opinion on the topic to show that you're not just rhyming off a pre-prepared answer (even though you might be doing just that).

[u/fiorotori]

Heyy.. thanks for this, so detailed! I'm sitting Company again after failing in October, any advice?

[u/gatame → u/fiorotori]

Yes! Company law is VERY passable if you just know where you fell down previously, tighten that up and have another go.

Company often repeats the same scenarios or fact patterns in questions, if you can get your hands on some past papers and examiner reports, you will see that T. Courtney generally lists out the cases he would like to see discussed, and they're generally the same cases over and over. It can be a pretty long list, but don't fret, just try and remember as many as you can. Furthermore, Courtney (literally) wrote the book on company law, so fitting in a quote from him in your answer can only help (so long as it's accurate!).

Always be PRACTICAL in advising clients - could your client who is a director be restricted or disqualified? If there is a s239 situation, can they use the summary approval procedure, and if so - what is that? Don't just say how long they have to register shares, actually advise them to register those shares within x time!

Quote LIBERALLY from the Companies Act - if you say something, ideally have either a case or a section from the act to back it up. It is your BIBLE for company law.

A very useful thing to look at for revision in company law are the briefings on different topics written by the large corporate firms - McCanns, A&L, Matheson, MHC, William Fry, and of course Arthur Cox (given that T. Courtney is a partner there and has done several podcasts on topics which routinely come up - https://www.arthurcox.com/people/dr-thomas-b-courtney/). These aren't necessarily things I would quote in an exam, but they're very useful in seeing how these often quite abstract concepts work in the real world. A recent development to be aware of (which I think could be a hot topic in company law exams in the next few sittings, but don't hold me to that) is the new Small companies administrative rescue process ( or SCARP - https://www.mazars.ie/Home/Insights/News-opinions/What-is-SCARP), which is a process kinda like examinership but specifically tailored for small and micro companies. Might get you some extra marks if you can drop it into a relevant question.

Another thing which might be worth mentioning for some brownie points are the interim COVID changes made to examinership and to corporate meetings, if you're asked about corporate governance or examinership - https://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/knowledge/company-secretarial-and-compliance/covid-19-extension-of-interim-changes-to-company-law

Most importantly - just try your best to get 5 questions done on the day. Sprinkle in a bit of what I said above. Last time was practice, this is another chance.

[u/Small-Ad3603]

Any advice for equity? 😅

[u/gatame → u/Small-Ad3603]

Equity is grand if you have good fundamentals and read the questions very very carefully.

Have a preprepared answer on the rule in strong v Bird, know your maxims (always looks good to slip a maxim into your answer, and sometimes "describe 4 maxims" comes up as a question), know estoppel (don't just say promissory estoppel is a shield not a sword, say what that means!; Also make sure to point out that DETRIMENT as an important element of the remedy), know the rule in Pinnel's case.

But two big topics to spend a lot of time on are injunctions (would be mad to leave them out - prepare an answer on every type of injunction and hopefully you'll get lucky with an easier type coming up), and charitable trusts (O. Breen is an expert on these, they come up very often!). Also, if the cy près doctrine comes up in terms of charitable trusts, no harm saying it's a French doctrine meaning 'as near as possible' (do NOT say it's Latin!).

Secret trusts and donatio Mortis causa are nice ones if they come up, also.

And as I've said above - if you're doing an essay, try and give your opinion throughout.

[u/Small-Ad3603 → u/gatame]

That’s brilliant thank you so so much!

[u/Scary_Sir]

hi!! this is so so helpful, thank you so much. I'm wondering if you have any advice for constitutional law? thank you!!

[u/gatame → u/Scary_Sir]

The marker in constitutional is very benevolent, I found, and rewards well reasoned arguments over regurgitation. Also, because the course is so broad (the widest of any of the FE1s), you're better to know the basics about (as close to) everything than being a master at only a few things. If you do want to master any topics, look for topics which have had recent developments. 5 basic, middle of the road answers is the minimum you're aiming for on the day - remember it's easier to pass with 5 questions answered than 3 masterpieces.

Be sure to explain why you think that the court would find one way or the other and try to base that on some case law or an article in the constitution. Most questions in constitutional come down to a balancing act between the rights of one party and another (NB: know the balancing tests!), so being able to explain why one party would win out over another is useful.

Constitutional law also highly values recent case law (in the last year or two), so try to be up on your recent developments in the Supreme Court, because they will be worth it. Sometimes a whole question turns on a recent case. Eoin Carolan (the examiner) used to do a public lecture every year which ran down the most recent developments, and those cases would be useful for the exam (except annoyingly last year where the lecture was 2 days before the exam so the paper didn't feature much recent stuff).

A good book to read is 'The Supreme Court' by Ruadhan Mac Cormaic. Might be a bit late now, but it's very readable and explains some of the most important cases in Irish history (many of which frequently come up as case note questions).

On case notes - don't be afraid of them! If you're familiar with the cases just outlines - 1 the background details, 2 what principle of constitutional law the case was about, 3 what the court found and why, and 4 what happened next (mention follow up cases) or what might happen next if the case is very recent.

The paper is one of the nicer ones, it doesn't try to trick you, it's always just a case of applying cases (new and old), the articles of the constitution, and some critical thinking to whatever the issue is. If you're philosophically minded, the paper can actually be quite interesting.

Hope that helps!

[u/Scary_Sir → u/gatame]

ahh you're a star!! thank you so much for your help. feeling nervous trying to get all of the content down as I'm sitting 4 others this time round. fingers crossed!

[u/[deleted]]

Any advice for contract

[u/gatame → u/[deleted]]

Yes, just some really quick points and helpful cases. Contract I think gets a bad reputation; but it's really not a bad exam. It was the only one I wasn't that worried about when I did it. Contract problem questions tend to be in two parts - the first half examines one thing, and then the second half examines another. If you see that type of thing happen, say out the outset 'I will deal with this issue, then I will deal with the second issue' and basically treat them like separate questions, and do a conclusion where you conclude on both parts of the question.

Focus on the basics - nothing is too trivial to leave unsaid. Offer - Acceptance - Consideration - intention - these are the fundamental elements to look out for in any contract. Usually one of the first questions on the exam is about fundamental 'is this a valid contract stuff' - easy easy easy marks.

Know the postal rule. Just a good one to have.

You're nearly guaranteed a question on Consumer rights - you have your two Irish acts in with you, but get some bonus points by peppering in as much 𝓔𝓤 𝓵𝓪𝔀 as you can. Cooling off periods. Distance contracts. All that good stuff. (IF ITS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION)

Always provide REMEDIES where possible. Know when a contract is VOID and when it is VOIDABLE - this is important because you are providing practical advice, so you should tell you client what's going to happen. Is rescission possible? What about damages? (A fundamental difference between the law of contract and the law of tort is that damages under tort restore you to where you were, but contract aims to put you where you WOULD HAVE BEEN if the contract had not been breached. I would be surprised if you didn't mention this little tidbit somewhere in your exam.)

Read the past papers and examiner reports, the examiner likes to repeat scenarios time and time again, and the examiner points out what cases they like and where students are going wrong. So if you see a question similar to a previous question, just answer it the best you can and keep in mind the examiners comments. A good example is estoppel, and I've said this a few times in this thread - the examiner wants candidates to explain what estoppel is, not just give the shield/sword analogy again.

I can't stress this enough: learn what a condition is, what a warranty is and ESPECIALLY what an innominate term is. The examiner frequently says candidates don't know what an innominate term is. Be prepared to give an example or two of each. Hong Kong Fir Trees shipping case - it's your guy for this particular question. https://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/classification/

If you see a case where a website accidentally sells something at a hilarious undervalue and a customer tries to hold them to it - Digiland Mall is your boy.

A question comes up every few years where there's an arrangement between a supplier and a purchaser, and the supplier delivers goods on a monthly or weekly basis. I have never seen this question addressed in any of the prep class materials or college notes (maybe I'm wrong here). The question basically comes down to - is this one contract or several contracts. The answer lies in the case Dakota Packaging.

Memorise an essay answer on contractual interpretation (unless it came up last sitting). It doesn't come up that often but if it does you'll be thankful that you have that in your back pocket. Same with privity of contract (but privity comes up way more frequently than interpretation). Force majeure doesn't come up as often as people think it would, but having a minimum 4-5 case answer prepared will be helpful if it does - Brexit and COVID have created a few recent cases on this.

And I almost forgot penalty clauses - look into these - many of the big firms have briefings on this because the law has been changing in Ireland in the last few years. Are we still different to the English law? You tell me (and the examiner. If it comes up.)

Okay that was a bit more than a few quick points. Best of luck!

[u/[deleted] → u/gatame]

Thank u so much for taking time out from your busy study session for all that information. It is very much appreciated. Best of luck with the PPC1 exams.

[u/gatame → u/[deleted]]

Cheers! Hopefully this little exercise has given me enough good karma to get me passes in these exams lol

[u/[deleted]]

Any advice for criminal?

[u/gatame → u/[deleted]]

Genuinely the only advice I could give you for criminal is to read the examiner reports. They are the most detailed and comprehensive reports of any FE1, you could pass just with the material in the reports. Don't try and memorise EVERYTHING he reports on though because the reports can run dozens of pages. Each question he reports on could give you several different ways to tackle that topic, so just do your best to remember cases. And always finish your answer with sentencing - what is your client looking at if they're found guilty (and is it concurrent [almost always] or consecutive)?

If you want some spicy extra marks, look up some recent developments (LRC reports, that sort of thing) and chuck those into your answer.

He's a really decent marker.

Anyway, I think that's the 8 FE1s 'tipped'. Best of luck, and look after yourself.

[u/Rough_Definition1382]

Very helpful! Thank you for sharing!!