FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Wannabe Solicitor

Hey everybody,
I was wondering if somebody could please help me.
I am trying to study receivership for company law at the moment and I know there is a case Ruby Property Co. Ltd. v Kilty & Superquinn that relates to the duties of a receiver when disposing of assets of the company. In fact I know that the company law City Colleges manual has a list of these key principles on pages 182-183.....just wondering if anybody would be so kind as to let me know what the manual says those principles are (or even if you know them in general)? Its just I don't have it with me at the moment.
Thanks in advance, I really appreciate it!!:)

chops018

Wannabe Solicitor wrote: »

Hey everybody,
I was wondering if somebody could please help me.
I am trying to study receivership for company law at the moment and I know there is a case Ruby Property Co. Ltd. v Kilty & Superquinn that relates to the duties of a receiver when disposing of assets of the company. In fact I know that the company law City Colleges manual has a list of these key principles on pages 182-183.....just wondering if anybody would be so kind as to let me know what the manual says those principles are (or even if you know them in general)? Its just I don't have it with me at the moment.
Thanks in advance, I really appreciate it!!:)

Ruby Property Company v. Kielty:

In this recent decision, McKechnie J set out a comprehensive formulation governing the duty of care on the part of the receivers to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. The principles were:

(a) Once a receiver enters into a contract to sell, he is bound to sell at the agreed price even if he receives a higher offer later
An example of this particular duty can be seen in the case of Casey v. Irish Intercontinental Bank Ltd, where an offer of £111,000 had been accepted by the receiver, which the receiver considered to be the best offer available at that time. Later on an offer of £190,000 was received but this was rejected because the receiver had already accepted the earlier offer. Kenny J stated that the receiver who enters into a contract for sale at a price which all the circumstances and valuations show is, at the date of the contract, the best price available is not liable if a higher price is offered after the contract is made.

(b) The duty to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable is at the time of the sale
The receiver is not required to postpone or defer or cancel a sale in the hope that the market improves. Furthermore, there is no duty to sell immediately in case the market falls. In this regard, McKechnie J approved the case of China v. Tam Song Gin. This can also be seen in the case of Re Bula Ltd, where the receiver had been appointed in respect of the sale of a mine. One of the arguments made against the receiver was that he went to the market at the wrong time. Denham J. rejected this, stating that the receiver is not legally obliged to postpone a sale until the market rises, nor must the receiver wait for other possible events to occur. Furthermore, she pointed out that the receiver’s primary duty is to the secured debenture holder and that any delay in the sale could be prejudicial to them in that their interest payments could be rising.

(c) The Court judges the receiver’s conduct in light of the facts known and circumstances pertaining at the time of the sale, and not with the benefit of hindsight
An example of this can be seen in the case Re Edenfell Holdings Ltd, where the receiver had got two offers in respect of the asset under sale, one offer being higher than the other. However, the higher offer was subject to certain conditions and was not certain. Laffoy J. in the HC held that the receiver did not exercise reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. This was reversed in the SC. In giving judgment, Keane J held that the receiver had exercised all reasonable care. He stated:
“the court was dealing with the matter with the advantage of hindsight: the receiver had to deal with the matter then and there and in light of expert evidence available to him from a Valuer. Having tested the market again, without any response in the form of an unconditional offer, he was entitled, in all the circumstances, to take the view he did”.

(d) There are no fixed rules as to the method by which a receiver should dispose of the assets

(e) The receiver must evaluate the true and total value of an offer
He should consider issues such as demands, conditions or benefits of an offer in conjunction with a price.
(f) The receiver owes a duty of care to the company, to the guarantors of the company’s liability and to the secured creditors
However, there is no duty of care to the unsecured creditors (see below)

(g) It is no defence for a receiver to state that the breach in question was caused by agents hired by him (for example, experts, architects, estate agents)
He takes ultimate responsibility.

(h) If a receiver breaches his duty, he must pay the monetary equivilant of the difference between the price he got and the price he should have got

(i) The receiver should listen to those persons who have a vested interest in the sale of the property in how best to dispose of the asset
In this case of Ruby Property Company, a receiver had taken possession of the company’s premises and, despite a number of requests and correspondence from the company, had refused to advertise the premises for sale. The asset in question was a house, accessible by a service road. Adjoining properties claimed a right of way over the land occupied with the house, and it was a house with limited development potential. The receiver had appointed planning consultants and estate agents and was advised that the property had a specialist rather than a general market appeal. It was on the basis of this that the receiver had approached adjoining landowners with a view to selling the land to them and was of the view that it was not necessary to advertise the premises. The premises was eventually sold by tender for £102,500. Four months later it was sold for over £160,000. The shareholders of the company brought an action against the receiver for breach of his duties to them. McCracken J said that where a receiver is appointed to a company that is not insolvent and that where the sale of a charged asset will produce a surplus (than what is owed to the debenture holder) then the court may consider that the receiver has some form of obligation to at least consider representations made to him by the company and its shareholders as to how to conduct the sale.

As already stated, the receiver should also listen to advice given to him about the sale of the asset by experts. However, there may be circumstances where he could legitimately reject that advice. In Lambert Jones Estate Ltd v. Donnelly, a receiver rejected experts’ advice on how best to dispose of the assets of receivership. There, one opinion on the disposal of the property charged would have involved planning applications at a time when the interest on the principle was running at over £3,000 per day. The receiver was entitled to follow another expert opinion which would mean that the property would realise less but would be sold more quickly.

(j) Under section 316(A)(3A), a receiver shall not sell a non-cash asset of the requisite value to a person who is or who, in three years prior to the date of appointment of the receiver, has been an officer of the company unless he gives at least 14 days notice of an intention to do so to all creditors of the company who are known to him
Courtney points out that although it is not quite clear what the consequences of breaching this particular section are, it is thought that the validity of the sale is unaffected as the legislature has not expressly provided for same. In England and Wales, such a sale of a non-cash asset to an officer or ex-officer of the company needs to be approved by shareholders by way of an ordinary resolution: Demite Ltd v. Protec Health Ltd.

Tom Young

Is this a copy and paste? ...

chops018

Tom Young wrote: »

Is this a copy and paste? ...

Yes but it isn't from a manual. From typed notes. Is that ok? I'll delete it if you want?

Tom Young

No that's ok, once they are yours.

Wannabe Solicitor

Thanks so much for that chops, its exactly what I was looking for! Really appreciate it!

sorchauna

Anybody have an up to date equity grid for 2012? I have EU, Tort and Constitutional in return. Slighly older ones for the other 4.

Mario007

Hey I wanted to ask, which of the manuals are better for study: Griffith college or City College? I have absolutely no idea about either of the two, or whether there are significant differences at all. I heard somewhere that City might be better, but that was just a case of 'some guy somewhere said that...'.

Also, if they are similar, can I mix and match them, or am I better off sticking to one 'brand' of the manuals?

Fe1exams

Bizarre story re Murder:
A man, intent on suicide, jumps from the ninth floor of his apartment block. Unknown to him, his wife is on the floor below, having a heated quarrel with her son. She draws a gun and fires at the son, intending to kill him. She misses, the bullet flies out of the window and hits - and kills - her descending husband. (i find it very hard to belive thats a true story)


Anyway i have a question to ask please if anyone might put me out of my misery!
I am unsure why s4(1) CJA 1964 states >>> the bit in bold : whether the person actually killed or not.
4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.
(Is it beacuse of the doctrine of transferred malice - where x intends to kill y but misses and kills z)


Thanks

Tom Young

This can be explained be evaluating the words "not be murder".

What did the man intend? = Red Herring may be?

Then who did woman intend to kill? "some person".

Yes, the doctrine operates in this section. Had she formed the mens rea for murder?

Does that assist?

See subsection 2, rebuttable presumption. Might reduce murder to manslaughter.

Tom Young

You'd also be expected to note the decriminalisation of suicide per S.2 of the CL(Suicide) Act, 1993.

JCJCJC

This is the event at which your examiner usually presents a paper on the most significant cases of the preceding year:

http://www.ucd.ie/law/events/title,155676,en.html

Fair warning for the 2013 FE1 exam....


JC

JCJCJC

This is McCrystal, the case being featured at that seminar. It would have to be considered fresh and topical...

I think I'll go to that seminar, just to keep in touch. Say 'lo if you're there.

sorchauna

JCJCJC wrote: »

This is McCrystal, the case being featured at that seminar. It would have to be considered fresh and topical...

I think I'll go to that seminar, just to keep in touch. Say 'lo if you're there.

What would we do without you at boards!

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

This is the event at which your examiner usually presents a paper on the most significant cases of the preceding year:

http://www.ucd.ie/law/events/title,155676,en.html

Fair warning for the 2013 FE1 exam....


JC

This is an ABSOLUTE must for anyone planning to sit Constitutional in the next year and a half. The examiner discusses all the relevant case law and when I was there in 2011 we were given a handout with the top 10 (or 20) cases of the passed 12 months. Alas the majority of them appeared in the last 3 Consitutional papers as either a case note question, or the facts being almost similar in a problem question.

You would be an absolute fool not to go.

UberStressed

Mario007 wrote: »

Hey I wanted to ask, which of the manuals are better for study: Griffith college or City College? I have absolutely no idea about either of the two, or whether there are significant differences at all. I heard somewhere that City might be better, but that was just a case of 'some guy somewhere said that...'.

Also, if they are similar, can I mix and match them, or am I better off sticking to one 'brand' of the manuals?

I haven't used Griffith, but between City Colleges and Independent Colleges the Independent ones are defo better. I found the City ones really badly edited in places - some sentances didn't make any sense, creating confusion over what the outcome of a case actually was.

crosshair12

Not sure if there's any limit on the numbers that can attend this, but I registered
for it at the start of December, so don't hang around...

chops018

crosshair12 wrote: »

Not sure if there's any limit on the numbers that can attend this, but I registered
for it at the start of December, so don't hang around...

I emailed the woman about reserving a place but she is out of office until January the 7th. I am just wondering when you have to pay? Doesn't seem like they would just let you reserve a place and pay on the day, then there is no guarantee of you coming. Or am I wrong?

MoneyMilo

Does anyone know if the examiner reports from the last sitting are available yet?

sorchauna

chops018 wrote: »

I emailed the woman about reserving a place but she is out of office until January the 7th. I am just wondering when you have to pay? Doesn't seem like they would just let you reserve a place and pay on the day, then there is no guarantee of you coming. Or am I wrong?

When I used to go to those conferences in UCC you'd pay beforehand but may not necessarily be the minute you reserve a place.

JCJCJC

chops018 wrote: »

I emailed the woman about reserving a place but she is out of office until January the 7th. I am just wondering when you have to pay? Doesn't seem like they would just let you reserve a place and pay on the day, then there is no guarantee of you coming. Or am I wrong?

Believe it or not...when I went with Hogzy in 2011, the payment system was more-or-less a biscuit tin at the back of the room on the night.

They aren't depending on FE1 students. These seminars offer CPD hours for practitioners so there's something of a captive market out there. Of course there's no question of eminent constitutional lawyers showing off their brilliance to solicitors taking an interest in constitutional matters, there'd be nothing like that going on....;-)

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

This is an ABSOLUTE must for anyone planning to sit Constitutional ...
You would be an absolute fool not to go.

There's a tactful, gentle, discreet, lawyerly, subtle, diplomatic, understated hint if ever I saw one ;-)

LegalCity

Hi

Anybody have an EU grid/past papers and Company grid/past papers? In return will trade grid/past papers from the other six subjects. Thanks

If so PM me

LegalCity

Hi

Anybody have an EU grid/past papers and Company grid/past papers? In return will trade grid/past papers from the other six subjects. Thanks

If so PM me

sophya

So I'm planning to sit 4 or 5 FE1s in October. Managed to get my hands on a City College EU manual and past papers. Just wondering, what are these exam grids everyone is talking about? I assume its just a breakdown of the questions per exam paper and thus I could do it myself.

Also is just studying from the manuals enough? Looking at the EU law exam papers, seems you also need to read a load of cases for the case note question which is basically a certainty. Few cases seem to come up year after year e.g. Van Gend en Loos, Kadi and ENEL. I suppose there's no certainty but are there cases that are certain to be on the paper for case notes?

chops018

sophya wrote: »

So I'm planning to sit 4 or 5 FE1s in October. Managed to get my hands on a City College EU manual and past papers. Just wondering, what are these exam grids everyone is talking about? I assume its just a breakdown of the questions per exam paper and thus I could do it myself.

Also is just studying from the manuals enough? Looking at the EU law exam papers, seems you also need to read a load of cases for the case note question which is basically a certainty. Few cases seem to come up year after year e.g. Van Gend en Loos, Kadi and ENEL. I suppose there's no certainty but are there cases that are certain to be on the paper for case notes?

Yes the grids are what you assume - a breakdown of what topics came up in the previous sittings, they are handy to have in my opinion, and yes you could do one yourself but it'd be time consuming.

The manuals are good enough, but I would suggest getting sample answers for the subjects, they are a great tool and very exam focused, I usually go through a few whenever I finish a topic. As for the case notes I must say I', not 100% sure as I'm only going to be sitting EU in March, but, I would rarely say to read a full case unless you really had to, it would be too time consuming and a case note is very short, you will see this in the sample answers.

frustratedTC

Ive constitutional and EU to do this march, thinking maybe property as well, when should I start study if im not working? Im not too late now am I?

chops018

frustratedTC wrote: »

Ive constitutional and EU to do this march, thinking maybe property as well, when should I start study if im not working? Im not too late now am I?

I'm doing Const and EU this March too, I'm also thinking of throwing in Tort too. I did bits and pieces throughout December but I'm only really getting started properly now. I am hoping it is enough time to pass the two at least anyway. Just about 2 months really should be enough if you did 5 full days studying a week, it's all about motivation from here, and I must say I could use a bit of it now myself.

JCJCJC

chops018 wrote: »

I'm doing Const and EU this March too, I'm also thinking of throwing in Tort too. I did bits and pieces throughout December but I'm only really getting started properly now. I am hoping it is enough time to pass the two at least anyway. Just about 2 months really should be enough if you did 5 full days studying a week, it's all about motivation from here, and I must say I could use a bit of it now myself.

I think you'd want to crack on at this stage, const and EU take a lot of reading just to get through the course. Devise a strategy for highlighting your EU treaty before you start - eg assign a colour for each topic etc. Don't forget to highlight the contents page and the index too, especially in EU where stuff can be spread across two treaties, not to mention regs etc.

5 days a week? what are you doing for the other two!! ;-)

sophya

So I spent the weekend reading over an EU law manual that I managed to get my hands on. Not studying properly yet, just getting myself familiar with the overall area again. Just wondering if the new Stability Treaty will be examinable in the October exams?

Also is there any topics that can be avoided? Or can you leave out a certain amount of the syllabus and still be safe?

I just read over State Aid and it left my head in bits. If not I suppose I have 9 months to get my head around it.