The proposal documents are on the New EQE pages of the EPO website. The consultation will run from the second half of May until 15 July 2022. The mock papers will be accessible in WISEflow, but you must sign up separately, even if you already have an account.
The proposal consists of 2 foundation and 4 main modules that gradually progress from acquiring legal and procedural knowledge towards its practical application.
The new format is adapted to online exam taking – the time on the computer during the exams will be shorter, and there is a combination of autoscoring (multiple choice) and open questions. The material that can actually be tested in each exam is therefore reduced, but that is compensated by having a broader range of situations that need to be prepared. These situations have all been explicitly mentioned in the proposal, so you can see exactly what you need to know.
I am already a big fan of M4 (Advising the Client) because it includes:
- Understand and know infringing activities (in comparative patent law),
thus being capable of determining the rights conferred by a patent, their duration
and which acts need to be performed to be able to enforce them.
Feedback can be provided by questionnaire once the mock papers are available. The earliest that these changes could be introduced is EQE 2024. They have already indicated that EQE 2023 will follow the current regulations and formats.
Very useful post, thank you! I wonder if they will publish a table to explain what happens to those who have started the old EQE and passed the pre-examination and one or more papers. In my case I just passed the pre-examination and I am planning to sit paper A and D only next year.
ReplyDeleteYes, they will definitely do this once the module contents are finalised and agreed. But this proposal is so detailed and well-worked out, I cannot imagine that it will change much. I like the move more towards more practical skills than a lot of theory. And the move away from a dedicated (and artificial) opposition exam.
ReplyDeleteIn general, it looks like passing the Pre-exam is equivalent to F1 and F2.
M3 seems to be 1.5xD1, but that is currently not a separate exam.
M4 seems to be 1.5xD2, but that is also not currently a separate exam.
M1 and M2 are covering the current A, B and C.
I think the likeliest scenario will be that any one allowed to do the main examination does not need to do the F1 and F2 modules. For resitters, it would be reasonable to not look for a 1:1 match, but look at what still needs to be done. So, if you need to pass 2 exams, then you will have to pass 2 of the new modules. If you only need to pass 1 exam, than again only 1 module needs to be passed. It would also be great if there were some options.
A or B not passed => take M2
AB not passed => take M1 + M2
C not passed => take M2 or M4 (not really based on content, but the level required to pass M4)
D not passed => take M3 or M4
It would also be great in the beginning if there was the freedom to take more than one – e.g. Do M3 and M4, so that you have 2x chances to pass “D”. Or do M2 and M4 to have 2x chances to pass “C”.
Just speculating 🙂
I would expect M3 and M4 to include unitary patents
ReplyDeleteI have not heard how the unitary patent is to be integrated in the EQE.
DeleteThe current REE already mentions "community patents", but that has been included since the beginning because the original treaty was expected to be implemented soon after the EPC.
REE Article 13 Examination syllabus
The examination shall establish whether a candidate has:
(a) European patent law as laid down in the EPC and any legislation relating to Community patents
Rule 26(3) Content of Paper D:
They shall be expected to demonstrate their ability to deal with a complex industrial-property law case involving fundamental issues of patentability, rights of inventors,
inventions as property and third-party rights, as defined in particular, but not solely, in Articles 52 to 89 EPC, the
corresponding articles of the PCT, any legislation relating to Community patents, the Paris Convention, and the
relevant laws of the contracting states.
I see that "Community" is also not in the new proposal, so it will be a good idea to point this out in the feedback.
But I assume the EQE will just cover the EPO part of the unitary procedure, and it will also be included in this new infringement part. But most of unitary patent will be dealt within the Patent Litigation Certificate courses.
Shouldn't there be clear rules on the transition period? Indeed, what happens to candidates who have passed some, but not all papers. Thanks for your speculation, Mr. Pollard, and I do hope the official proposals will be made public very soon.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry too much - during past changes to exams, they were generous in the conversion of results during the transition, and gave plenty of warning of the change.
DeleteThe main uncertainty will be what they will exactly test in the new exams, but the main thing being added is the practical application of the same theory.
It will be challenging for many of the current course providers to organise as they will have to change everything within a short time, but more emphasis will be on practical skills instead of methodology. So experience gained from real life cases will be more valuable for passing. And if you have fewer real life cases, then you will learn how to deal with them for the future during your training.
This will be a problem for courses where they are mainly just covering theory. I have always included the practical part in any training, like actually filing a PCT application during the session, so I can already imagine from this proposal what the training per module will look like.
It also means fewer lectures and more active learning, which makes the learning much more interesting and motivating :-)
This issue has come up at EPI level - in my opinion there is a strong will to povide clear and fair rules on the transitional arrangements. But, as the present proposals are under consultation, they may change. Therefore, work cannot progress on the transitional arrangements because we don't yet know exactly what we're transitioning towards.
DeleteI hope this makes sense!
Hi RG,
Deletethanks for the comment. Yes, it makes sense, but it is maybe a little too cautious. There are a lot of candidates who worry about any change at all. It would be great to add at least some general comments about how the transition will be managed and the general principles to be followed in designing the transition system. For example, would someone well-prepared for the current (more theoretical) exams be able to pass the new ones?
This also helps to give an idea of the intended levels, particularly for those modules that are new.
I also think that the resitters issue is quite important to the general acceptance of the whole proposal - there will be a lot in the system still needing to pass 1 or 2 main exams. What will they have to do to finish?
Yes this is indeed true. I consider how the e-EQE was thrust upon candidates with software that, to date, still has technical flaws! I appreciate that some measures were taken (mock e-exams, etc) but for me, I am pretty sure that I had a better chance passing a paper EQE than the e- variation based on the content of the 2021 and 2022 exams. For resitters in particular, they will have had to undergo 2 major changes to the EQE inclusive of a 1-year forced break (2020). Seemingly unfair the the scheme of things! Therefore a fair and transparent transition is highly due!
ReplyDeleteHas any one received EQE results now?
ReplyDeleteNope, too early. I’d expect results to be out around the last week of June, as in the previous years.
DeleteAre thw results delayed because of the new consultation time period? I hope they won't affect anything.
ReplyDeleteHave you been officially informed about a delay? There is no relation with the consultation. Maybe due to recent appeal decisions which gave compensation points for unexpected technical problems, and the double penalisation in the B exam?
DeleteI see that the examiners reports for 2022 are now available in the EQE compendium, so the results should be available this week.
DeleteSorry - my mistake. The Main Examiner's reports are not yet there - I was looking at the Pre-Exam ;-(
DeleteBut they should be coming soon.
Oh thank you. I had not received anything yet from them and thought somehow they were connected.
ReplyDeleteI was informed that the examiners had met at the beginning of June. The wait is unjustified in my view.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting worried we will not get results till end of July, since the new consultation period ends around that time. We will only have a few weeks to decide on new registration or appeal before deadlines end which is not ideal due to summer holiday period.
ReplyDeleteIt will not be the end of July - they need to get everything finished before people start disappearing on vacation.
DeleteThe consultation is a completely separate project. Any exam changes will not be earlier than EQE 2024. It does not affect the results.
The examiners reports for A, B and D were available yesterday in the EPO website publication archive (but not linked to the Compendium), so it looks like they are almost finished.
This came today: "Dear candidate,
ReplyDeletePlease be informed that the results of the EQE 2022 main examination will be available soon. We expect to provide them by 15 July 2022.
All candidates will be informed by email once the results are available on myEQE."
On the Delta blog, people describe feedback from the EQE helpdesk saying that the results have been delayed to July 15th due to IT problems. Apparently if you phone them, they can tell you which papers you have passed but cannot give further details.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that said person was a troll, from later comments.
DeleteDoes anybody know what the problem is? I struggle to believe that it's IT-related; apparently, the results have been finalised, so setting the deadline of 15 July for simply sending the results to candidates seems a bit too much. Perhaps some marks need tweaking?
ReplyDeletemaybe it has to do with the President since he was just re-elected?
ReplyDeleteI have heard a rumor that the delay is due to 900 complaints that were filed after the exam which need to be processed to determine the final number of marks.
DeleteSpeculating further on this: based on recent appeal decisions (like D 12/21 and D 37/21) from EQE 2021, the Examination Board should provide reasoning why individual complaints did not lead to extra marks, or why additional marks were awarded. For example, the board of appeal suggested to compensate for lost time due to technical issues (x marks per y minutes lost). This means that all the complaining candidates were in a position to file an allowable appeal based solely on the missing reasoning. They Examination Board would then have to provide the reasoning. Not all candidates would actually get extra marks, of course.
Up to now, individual compensation marks have been added manually to the marking sheets without explanation - I can imagine that they need to bring structure into this and integrate it into the marking system.
So, if this is true, some of the complaining candidates may benefit from this delay.
Shame, I really hoped they realised that the proposed mark scheme for Paper A was bonkers and decided to tweak it…
DeleteThe complete marking scheme and all accepted variants are not published in the Examiners Report. They generally go with one general direction and the most common mark deductions.
DeleteIt has been tried before to publish more than one accepted solution, but it made it very difficult to read and created a lot of confusion.
I complained in 2021 and 2022 due to technical problems experienced: "fuzzy screen", wrong language paper, etc. I did not however appeal, since my law firm would not support me financially and I could not afford the fees myself. I feel I should have already passed B in 2021 so that this year should have been my last EQE. However, because I did not appeal, this year's B paper was a lot harder and so I will probably be stuck in the EQE hole again! How unfair!
Deleteresults email arrived here at 14:38
ReplyDeleteHi Pete, do you have an appeal template you can share please and any tips on what to include.
ReplyDeleteI'm in a situation where I had IT issues and it was acknowledged and been awarded a couple of marks. I'm within 1 mark from passing and the issues affected me is between pass and fail. I feel that it had more of an impact and want to appeal.
At the very least, I feel that it should be looked at by a 3rd marker as especially if it's just 1 mark off
DeleteThe compensation seems very randomly allocated to me. IT issues affects people differently and in my case, it's literally between a pass and a fail. Is there anything I can do to convince them of this and award me 1 more mark. Or is it set in stone.
DeleteIt is horrible to be so close. But think closely before filing an appeal - the procedure takes so long that you will already have taken the exam next year before you get the appeal decision. Most appeals are unsuccessful, so it can mentally be a negative path to follow which may affect your preparation for next year. For some people it is positive to at least complain, without having much expectation of success.
ReplyDeleteYou are aiming for extra marks due to the IT issues, due to mistakes in the exam, and/or based on your answer deserving more marks.
I am glad to see that they have awarded some IT marks, but there should also be some reasoning given.
If you were just 1 mark away, then your answer should have been reviewed to see whether you have been unfairly marked down. If the marks from the two markers were very different, then it should have already been reviewed by a 3rd marker to ensure consistency.
You can also limit yourself to the first stage, which is asking the Examination Board to review their decision based on your appeal. This is most useful where there is clearly something wrong that has been missed during the marking, like part of your answer not being marked or not being correctly understood. The EB have to decide within 2m whether to revise the decision. (interlocutory revision) or to send it to the Board of Appeal.
I don't think a template is useful because each appeal will be quite different. Try posting on the blogs and in the telegram groups to see if there are others who are also appealing the same exam, and do it together. If you are defending your answer as also correct, you will need to provide the same level of detail as you would need for an office action or an opposition.
You can find some general information here (the fee has gone up): appeal against EQE
And here are some appeal decisions: appeal decisions
Thanks Pete. Any chance you can shoehorn appeals on 2 papers in one notice of appeal and save appeal fees that way.
DeleteYou are appealing one decision, regarding passing or failing the whole EQE based upon the marks awarded for each exam. So, you can object to 1-4 exams in your appeal if they were taken this year.
DeleteIt is also possible to pay the fee via the MyEQE portal - you first need to as the EQE secretariat to enable the option.
My problem is that I couldn't see the claims for Paper C in each half for 5-10 mins at start plus the screen went blurry at some stage and crashed towards the end of part C1. As you know, it so crucial to see claims ASAP so that I meant I didn't finish properly some attacks.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if they have looked at my paper carefully before or after awarding compensation. There is no indication in my letter at all that a 3rd person looked at it.
I know it's an average of marks between 2 examiners but if I just take the highest marks awarded for each claim, it adds up to 44 before compensation applies. So another 2 marks awarded for IT issues may mean I could have 46 marks. I feel like at least a 3rd person should look at it when it's a difference between passing and failing based on a mark. Is it worth emailing the Exam sect first about this
I should add its around 5-10 mins at start for both C1 and C2.
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong Pete, but it sounds like this person had some credible IT issues, is extremely close anyway to compensable fail marks (45). Would the EPO have to look at the script more closely around 41-45 and 46-49, especially after the awarded marks for technical issues. I think there is a case of at least asking whether your script has been checked again. The Examiner often mark scripts (especially when there are hundreds to go through) in a hurry and can easily miss 1 or 2 marks here and there. I generally find that they can often find one or two marks additional marks.
DeleteI don't know what order they follow for the compensations, or how they can interact.
DeleteLooking for 1-3 marks extra has a reasonable chance - it is much harder to get 10 marks.
In some cases, it looks like it made a small difference if you were only 1-3 marks away from passing the whole EQE with high marks in the other exams. This is not a compensation, but it seems that some candidates in this situation were given benefit of the doubt when presenting substantive arguments regarding a single failed exam.
Also the compensation for IT issues has not yet been fully worked out yet, so if you had IT issues that were not your fault, it may be possible that they decide to award an extra 1 mark. But you should have already complained immediately after the exam, and preferably also during the exam through the widget.
DeleteI did immediately notify the EPO about the issues. I think is inadequate as the claims to paper C are so crucial and I couldn't see them for a while. Wiseflow crashing didn't help either.
DeleteAs for 44 marks, surely they should look at the paper on kts own and not consider other papers. If its enough to get 45 marks, it means there is no need to do that paper again next year which obviously has a huge impact on preparation for other papers etc... I did achieve high marks on 2 but need the other 2
I don't think it's fair for the EPO to not look at your script at 44 marks because you have not pass the other 3. It still makes a difference as you could only need to do 1 other paper next year and not 2.
Sorry - my comments regarding other papers might be misleading. On their own, the scores on the other papers have absolutely no effect.
DeleteBut if you have a good case for getting more marks in an appealed paper anyway but it is still uncertain, it seems as if the Board of Appeal can use the scores in other papers as a kind of fit to practice benchmark to just tip the balance.
Is it possible to appeal 2 papers in one notice and pay 1 appeal fee?
ReplyDeleteYes - you are appealing one decision, regarding passing or failing the whole EQE based upon the marks awarded for each exam. So, you can object to 1-4 exams in your appeal if they were taken this year.
DeleteIt is also possible to pay the fee via the MyEQE portal - you first need to as the EQE secretariat to enable the option.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteSo if I have 2 papers left I got 44 marks on one. Is it worth appealing for that one to get it to 45 marks if possible or would EPO not consider it because you still have the other one left. I know people who got between 45 to 49 marks and don't do that paper again relying on compensible fail. I feel that the EPO should consider this situation some candidates find themselves in.
You can appeal a fail and you can also appeal a compensable fail. Successfully appealing a compensable fail to get a pass puts you in a better position for the future when you do other papers.
DeleteSo just to be clear, it's OK to appeal to get mark 44 changed to at least 45 marks if successful.
DeleteWould compensable fail apply if I successfully get 1 extra mark to 45 marks?
DeleteIf you have 44 marks, normally when you appeal, you would normally request a pass (50 or more).
DeleteIf you want, and you would be happy with that, you can request just a compensable fail (45 - 49). There is more chance that the Examination Board will decide in interlocutory decision in your favor, but you still need to provide new argumentation that was not in your complaint.
There are no guarantees - the Examination Board are not afraid to pass a request for 1 mark to the Board of Appeal.
Thanks Pete. Is it possible to do some sort of auxiliary request e.g. request pass 50 marks, request 45-49 marks? I will need to think carefully but I just want to know possible options at this stage.
DeleteYes. It is common to indicate that the appeal should be withdrawn if the Examination Board does not revise their decision within 2m, because they do not want to go through the long procedure before the Board of Appeal.
DeleteI don't know the exact rule, but it is possible to make withdrawal at any point (before sending to the Board of Appeal, before oral proceedings) dependent on a (partial) refund of the appeal fee.
Don't forget there is a single deadline of 1 month for the notice of appeal, paying the fee AND filing the grounds.
As for new arguments. I'm not sure if the following will help and your thoughts would be much appreciated
Delete1) unreasonable compensation for IT issues. Not sure if this has been adequately considered given that there was a delay. Didn't tell me how it was calculated and why it was awarded such a mark.
2) boundary marks - was the script checked again when compensation marks applied. I have no indication this was screen again by a 3rd examiner. Is that the correct procedure? I doubt it was checked again after award of compensation.
3) script marked too harshly. Alternatives reasonably considered? This one I'm not sure about wlbut will check my own marks obviously to see where things could be different. There was a debate on CPA for 1 of the claim and I unfortunately started from one wrong.
If anyone else has any other arguments for Paper C then will be much appreciated.
1) You should include this, and it will force them to provide something, but this is unlikely to get anything extra. The decisions, such as D 12/21 and D 37/21, discuss different possible compensation schemes which could be applied, so you should add your own suggestion.
Delete2) This can be useful, but you would be stronger if you have parts of your answer that did not appear to get marks. For example, an extra novelty or inventive step attack.
3) Check everything exactly against the examiners report and their suggested answer. You can also look at the candidates solutions (although these will have some errors in them).
Thanks Pete. Will do
DeleteOne thing I have note is that for one of the claims, the solution state the optimal starting doc and a less desired starting doc. I opted for the less desirable one but only got 2 marks which seems pretty low. It's a partial problem and I did have ( I think good reason) why I think it was CPA. So I obviously followed the novelty analysis and given arguments on IS. The difference, the TE and OTP for first problem is what one would expect as it is also the missing feature in the first (optimal CPA doc) so I hoped to have more than 2 marks here. Would they consider or award reasonable marks for alternatives. The fact that they mention it in their solution as less desirable (to me, means it's still possible to start from it) so I think it should still obtain more than 2 marks.
Hi Pete.
DeleteDifferent person from Anon. I attacked claim 3 using an IS attack. They wanted added matter attack on claim 3. however, in my view, this is still a valid attack against claim 4 and should still be considered to knock out claim 3. In real opposition, this would be possible and alternative attacks foe the same claim is allowed. Is this a possible linenof argument that can be used or have been used before.
If I remember correctly A3a + A2 works extremely well against C3 too. Its also included in DP solutions. So C3 can be attacked using an alternative attack (not added matter).
DeleteTo me, the huge loss of marks for the wrong CPA shows how artificial paper C has become. In a real-life opposition, that would be completely correctable. And in the oppositions I have been involved in, CPA is never discussed as a separate issue - the Board just asks you to present the inventive step attacks based on both of them. Once you see the steps, you can then decide which is the CPA. But if an inventive step attack is accepted from a not-so-close CPA, the claim still lacks inventive step. It is not necessary to reformulate it. It is supposed to be a test for "fit to practice".
DeleteIt is worth checking previous appeals for how "less-optimal attacks" are considered, But I have seen at least one appeal where detailed opposition-like argumentation was accepted, explaining how the candidate interpreted features in the prior art, but attacking a claim using an unexpected combination.
thanks Pete. if you or anyone know of this decision then that would be useful.
DeleteSo if you keep it with the ED, you should technically know within 2 months of your appeal. I understand the delay is when it is referred to the BoA
ReplyDeleteIf I follow the threads correctly above, one should request a straight pass in their appeal. A back up request is to compensable pass (45-49). Would that work?. If they don't think it's worth 50 but do think you should get 45, would this still be awarded.
ReplyDeleteYes - phrase it as a main request and an auxiliary request.
DeleteHi Pete - I'I think the solution to paper A this year is very super unfair in the marking and there are several issues which I plan to base my appeal around. Just wanted to see what you think. Its mainly around the independent method claim of making paper pulp which is worth 28 marks
ReplyDelete1) "Lignin" definition [008] "we only use raw plant material such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles or nettles, or mixtures thereof, which does not contain lignin."
One can derive from the above disclosure that wood contains lignin and the plant raw material does not contain lignin. Lignin: [008] is super ambiguous of whether it is inherent to raw plant material that it does not comprise lignin. Unfortunately, the word "which" in English is used to classify/specify and so I took the meaning that raw plant material is inherent that it doesn't contain lignin. If the wording was raw plant material THAT does not contain lignin, then I would've added this in. According to the solution, if you do not put in lignin-free, its a loss of 10 marks.
2) [018] One of our inventors, Mr D. Séchard, first thought that these drawbacks could be tackled by adding the glue to the pulp directly in the vat of the stamper machine during beating. However, beating the pulp together with the glue resulted in a sharp increase in the viscosity of the mixture, hindering the circulation and homogeneous treatment of the pulp. The paper pulp obtained in this way was found to be unsuitable for our purposes. Normal stamper beating is said explicitly to be unsuitable, so surely you must refer to the features of the inventive stamper machine.
Therefore, referring to the apparatus with angles other than 90 to obtain the technical effect in your method claim is a reasonable claim. As fit for practice candidates, one would expect to cover the inventive concept that achieves this technical effect in the method. A loss of 10 marks if you include the apparatus features that provide the inventive concept and based on the above that the text says it doesn't work across all stamper machines, I don't see how the EPO will let you get away with a general method claim without referring to the specific apparatus feature that allows the 90% circulation of pulp. I think this is dubious and arguable. it seems a loss of 10 marks is extremely harsh.
Overall, I think 20 marks relating to method of making pulp can be arguable. Its interesting because DP solution also had raw plant material without specifying the need for it to be lignin-free and referred to the apparatus features in their method of making pulp.
Apology for the long email but I wanted to get across my main reasonings.
I don't see how limitation to the structural features that provides the technical effect of 90% pulp circulation can be seen as a major limitation when [0018] specifically mentions that traditional stamping machine do not provide this effect. The EPO has many times tried to limit claims to the specific structural feature that enables the effect. I [0019-0023], its clear that the 90% circulation is only achievable with the stamper machine of the present invention. No other stamper machine can do this so pointless to make it broad (not limit it to specific features) as the skilled person would find that the invention is not fully enabled across the breadth of the claim.
DeleteIf one withdraws at ED stage (i.e. after their decision in August), how much appeal fees do you get back?
ReplyDeleteI have never seen a rule for this. EPC rules do not apply automatically to these proceedings, but they seem to apply something similar to Rule 103 EPC. You would have to ask the EQE secretariat how much would be refunded in that case.
DeleteCan exam board still change or modify their mark schemes right now or is that closed off. Is it now set in stone? Even if they realise there is something that is inconsistent or an obvious error they haven't considered e.g. translation or ambitious wording that leads to misinterpretation.
ReplyDeleteThey are always open to correcting real and obvious mistakes in any document. They are also open to correcting obvious errors in an individuals marking.
DeleteBut the real process that guarantees complete consideration is an individual appeal. Even if they find an alternative interpretation, they will not update the examiners report. They will just consider how the interpretation affects that individuals' marking. There is also no mechanism for benefiting main exam candidates who do not appeal if it is decided that there are errors or ambiguities.
I have a question re compensable fails: I have obtained A - 58, B - 59, C - 43 and D - 46 marks, D is compesable fail.
ReplyDeleteI think that my A and B will carry weight and provide marks to the compensable fail, even if my C exam next year is also a compensable fail. IPREE r(4)(a)-(c) says that I need 2 Pass (OK so far), no Fail (hopefully for C next year), and total of 200 (which, if I get at least 45 in C next year, will be also fulfilled). Is my interpretation correct? With my scores is it still necessary to sit D? The way i see it now is for honour reasons to get more than 46 marks, but maybe not necessary. Assuming the worst case scenario that I will fail C (less than 45 marks) next year, (and no new EQE format in 24), and that I pass C in 2024, my 46 marks in D will still be OK (available) to pass in 2024? I guess one question is is it OK to have 2 compesanble fails? And does a compensable fail remains as such for the next years? Thank you.
Hi Axl, there is no reason to resit D. Even if you get the minimum possible on C (which is 45), you still have enough to pass everything. Yes - it is a minimum of 200 marks with max. two compensable fails.
Delete"Honor reasons" is not a good reason to risk resitting D - you will have problems motivating yourself to study, and your old score is overwritten, even if the new score is lower. There is also no shame in passing with 46 - the compensable fail system allows some balancing over exams because it is easy to screw something up on the day, even if you are well-prepared.
Under the current system, you can keep D as compensable for as many years as you need to pass C.
We do not yet know what the transitional arrangements for the new system will be, but they will be fair.
thank you very much Pete! I do not know why I had this idea that compensable fail vanishes the next year, despite reading a few times IPREE. anyways, focusing on C. Thanks again!
DeleteNo problem. A lot of these provisions are unclear if you have not looked at them in detail. The EQE helpdesk will also answer such questions.
Delete... and thanks for the Kopi Luwak :-)
Passed at last! To those still short of the finish line: don’t worry! Keep calm, appeal if necessary, but carry on! Pete: you’re a legend!! Thanks for your help and advice along the way- absolutely indispensable! Seems for me timely given mr Johnson‘s departure from No 10, to be signing off now as well! Good luck everyone!! :-)
DeleteA big congratulation! It looks like the passing rates (pass + compensable fail) was pretty high this year on all the exams.
DeleteThanks for the kind words - I am glad it helps. It is always very motivating when another bunch of recruits gets over the finish line. You can now get oon with the rest of your life :-).
Hi Pete.
ReplyDeleteIf you are appealing more than 2 papers in the same notice and let's just say the ED agrees with your findings on 1 of the papers but not the other/want to remit to BOA, does the whole thing gets remitted to BoA or is it just the paper in question. The other one that they agree with, they can pass a decision on.
I don't know for sure. I think they send you a letter with the new decision asking you to confirm whether you still want the other papers to go to the board of appeal.
DeleteThanks Pete. Do you have any contacts that would know for sure. I don't know if the whole decision e.g. for all papers will be delayed or just the one paper is delayed if it is referred to BoA and the other decision on Other papers by ED will stands. Off course if one paper is decided in your favour but the other is not, it seems odd to refer the whole thing to BOA
DeleteThey need a much simpler software/requirement set up in 2023
ReplyDeleteWiseflow doesn't suit these papers especially paper C. It seems nobody takes much notice of candidates feedback.
And they wonder why most trainees/recent Attorneys feel disengaged and dillusioned with EQE/EPO organisation.
DeleteFor comments relating to appeals, please see the separate post. I have also copied all the appeal-related comments from this post over to that one: e-EQE2022: Main Exam - what to do after a pass or a fail
ReplyDelete