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

LegalFianna

I have exam grids up to 2013/2014 in contract, criminal, property and equity. Let me know if anybody needs them. Also, if anyone has newer ones could you let me know please. Thank you

starbar91

Anyone reckon Donatia Mortis Causa will come up as a question for equity? I know it came up in mar 2013, and mar 2015 - anyone thinking it'll come up again?

20029422

odwyer94 wrote: »

Can anyone help me with this???

section 3 gives the headings but it is the case law that gives the scope of those headings I think

hullaballoo

amomcnico91 wrote: »

Would you be able to explain what it exactly prohibits please?

OK, I was hoping to do this from a laptop but stuck with phone so excuse spelling and brevity.

Basically, there is a prohibition on directors borrowing or taking company assets for themselves. This is primarily due to the fiduciary relationship between directors and the company. This is the same relationship a trustee has with the beneficiaries of a trust, and also the same for executors and will beneficiaries. Legally (or perhaps more accurately, equitably) the fiduciary relationship is hugely important. If you do not understand the relationship, look up a book on twitter for a fuller explanation.

It may in fact be off some use to think of company law being contained within the court's equitable jurisdiction. I won't go into history but despite the codification of the company regime, it is a subset of equity, with bells and whistles.

A fiduciary (in company law, the directors) cannot profit from their relationship with the beneficial owners of assets once which they have control. This includes for example taking company cash, investing it, and clearing a profit on that investment before returning the sum borrowed to the company's coffers.The director is said to be accountable to the company, which is a legalese way of saying the director must return the money plus any profit. It is not good enough to return it with the going interest rate or make up other reasons why he can keep some of the money. ALL of it must be returned.

On that basis, a director borrowing or otherwise using company assets has a conflict of interests as he must protect the company's assets to the best of his ability but in taking a loan or borrowing plant etc on his own behalf is necessarily putting his own interests at loggerheads with the company's.

S. 238 is a convoluted way of saying a director cannot take non-cash assets out of the company within the values set out without prior approval by resolution. If he does, it's voidable by the company unless already given back with any additional benefits acquired by the borrower included (or compensation in cash is given.) Or, if (enquiry's darling) a bona fide purchase for value without notice bought it. Or, if the deal is subsequently ratified at a general meeting. Within a reasonable time really means the next meeting duly held, EGM or AGM.

S. 239 is the same but covers cash assets being "lent" to a director or having the company's cash assets otherwise put at risk by an arrangement with one of its directors.

The above applies to connected persons.

The sections both have exceptions that are important-ish. Transactions between related companies that would otherwise be disallowed are allowed by the exceptions.

Hopefully this will assist you in making sense of these provisions. Feel free to ask follow up questions.

Edit: cleared up a couple of confusing spelling mistakes but also to say I apologise for being old fashioned and using the masculine form to refer to both genders but it's long habit!

amomcnico91

hullaballoo wrote: »

OK, I was hoping to do this from a laptop but stuck with phone so excuse spelling and brevity.

Basically, there is a prohibition on directors borrowing or taking company assets for themselves. This is primarily due to the fiduciary relationship between directors and the company. This is the same relationship a trustee has with the beneficiaries of a trust, and also the same for executors and will beneficiaries. Legally (or perhaps more accurately, equitably) the fiduciary relationship is hugely important. If you do not understand the relationship, look up a book on twitter for a fuller explanation.

It may in fact be off some use to think of company law being contained within the court's equitable jurisdiction. I won't go into history but despite the codification of the company regime, it is a subset of equity, with bells and whistles.

A fiduciary (in company law, the directors) cannot profit from their relationship with the beneficial owners of assets once which they have control. This includes for example taking company cash, investing it, and clearing a profit on that investment before returning the sum borrowed to the company's coffers.The director is said to be accountable to the company, which is a legalese way of saying the director must return the money plus any profit. It is not good enough to return it with the going interest rate or make up other reasons why he can keep some of the money. ALL of it must be returned.

On that basis, a director borrowing or otherwise using company assets has a conflict of interests as he must protect the company's assets to the best of his ability but in taking a loan or borrowing plant etc on his own behalf is necessarily putting his own interests at loggerheads with the company's.

S. 238 is a convoluted way of saying a director cannot take non-cash assets out of the company within the values set out without prior approval by resolution. If he does, it's voidable by the company unless already given back with any additional benefits acquired by the borrower included (or compensation in cash is given.) Or, if (enquiry's darling) a bona fide purchase for value without notice bought it. Or, if the deal is subsequently ratified at a general meeting. Within a reasonable time really means the next meeting duly held, EGM or AGM.

S. 239 is the same but covers cash assets being "lent" to a director or having the company's cash assets otherwise put at risk by an arrangement with one of its directors.

The above applies to connected persons.

The sections both have exceptions that are important-ish. Transactions between related companies that would otherwise be disallowed are allowed by the exceptions.

Hopefully this will assist you in making sense of these provisions. Feel free to ask follow up questions.

Edit: cleared up a couple of confusing spelling mistakes but also to say I apologise for being old fashioned and using the masculine form to refer to both genders but it's long habit!

Thank you so much, and is there exceptions to the restriction?

And what if the directors are also the shareholders?

claiomh solais

Just to double check - my 'candidate number' that I got in the most recent letter from the law society (the letter where they included the timetable and directions).. is that my examination number? Sorry first-timer here.

Which one goes on my legislative sources, the candidate ID or the candidate number?

Thanks in advance for any clarification

The Talking Bread

tobeginbegin wrote: »

Contract Law & Remedies

Question 4 of March 2016 Paper:
The examiner reports mentions a case called Leahy v Rawson ("note the Supreme Court decision")

Can someone tell me what what she is looking for in particular?

odwyer94 wrote: »

Can anyone help me with this???

I'll be honest, I am not sure about this but I would imagine, yes. As the Statute gives the actual provisions, e.g (PERC) (Poverty, Education, Religion, Community bla bla) and then it has to be decided what boundaries are set within such (well what kind of "charities" have been accepted in amongst those confines of the list)

What my plan is to have 1, maybe 2 of the actual categories, and then maybe one of each categorie as it relates to public benefit. I wouldnt worry excessively about the precise case names, just the issues themselves, ie mass reading, Carmelite nuns, the education through art, stuff that have been held to be charitable in the past)
Equity is never precise, especially with Charitable Trusts, so, within reason, you can give an opinion analysis of what you deem may be the chances of it being accepted as such and of course within each PERC)

Tigerbalm1

claiomh solais wrote: »

Just to double check - my 'candidate number' that I got in the most recent letter from the law society (the letter where they included the timetable and directions).. is that my examination number? Sorry first-timer here.

Which one goes on my legislative sources, the candidate ID or the candidate number?

Thanks in advance for any clarification

The 'candidate number' (3 numbers long) is your examination number and goes on your legislation and exam, you won't need to put your ID number on the exam answers.

You will use your ID number to log in for your exam results and when applying for the next set of exams. You will get a different candidate number for each set of exams but your ID number remains the same.

claiomh solais

Hey thanks so much for the info! Appreciated

LegalLady2

Can anyone advise how the examiners feel about abbreviations in exams? To save time Im thinking about writing "CA 14" rather than companies acts 2014 each time. Will examiners deduct marks??

Fe1stressCM

Hi, can anyone who has passed company and constitutional advise as to how particular Carolan and Courtney are with respect to case names? I have so many cases rumbled up for Wednesday and Thursdays exams!!

hullaballoo

amomcnico91 wrote: »

Thank you so much, and is there exceptions to the restriction?

And what if the directors are also the shareholders?

Yes, the exceptions are set out in the sections.

In 238, the exceptions are that transactions that would otherwise be prohibited are not so prohibited where they involve related companies (i.e. subsidiaries or sister companies under a holding company etc.) (s. 238 (4)(a))

It doesn't apply if the transaction is being carried out by a liquidator or receiver (no conflict of interests.) (s. 238 (4)(b)&(c))

It also doesn't apply where the director is a shareholder and is acquiring the benefit in his capacity as a shareholder. (s. 238 (5))

The exceptions to 239 are set out in ss 240, 242 and 245 and are reasonably straight-forward.

It is important to note here that the kinds of transactions here can very often give rise to proceedings against directors in a creditors voluntary liquidation under the provisions of ss 604 and 608 for unfair preferences and fraudulent disposals, respectively, even when they have been ratified or otherwise approved at general meeting.

This is particularly the case where the companies are small, one- or two-man entities.

However, for the purposes of ss. 238 and 239, obviously where the directors are also majority shareholders, they can have these transactions approved either in advance or ratified at general meeting in order to stop the transactions being avoided (in reality, to ensure that the transactions are intra vires the company so that other parties' rights aren't implicated because if the company is financially healthy, it is unlikely another person will gain control of it and seek to avoid the transactions.)

^^^There is a point for those of you planning on answering a question on ultra vires...

bluntspoon

This is a silly question, but does anyone know the best way to walk from the Red Cow Luas stop to the Red Cow Moran Hotel? I know the roads around there are a bit of a maze, but Google Maps wants me to walk for over an hour!

Tigerbalm1

LegalLady2 wrote: »

Can anyone advise how the examiners feel about abbreviations in exams? To save time Im thinking about writing "CA 14" rather than companies acts 2014 each time. Will examiners deduct marks??

I have done this for most exams and passed, I don't think examiners deduct marks, they understand you are under a time constraint. For example I would put Companies Act 2014 (CA 2014) and then refer to it as CA 2014 after.

Be careful to make sure your abbreviations are something the examiner can understand, if you write the full title once and note what you will abbreviate to that should avoid that problem.

Tigerbalm1

bluntspoon wrote: »

This is a silly question, but does anyone know the best way to walk from the Red Cow Luas stop to the Red Cow Moran Hotel? I know the roads around there are a bit of a maze, but Google Maps wants me to walk for over an hour!

There is a path, it takes 10 mins max. When you get off the luas follow the path under the little tunnel. There is a sign for the hotel I'm pretty sure. If in doubt ask someone on the day but it's pretty straightforward!

bluntspoon

Thanks a mil! Don't want to leave anything to chance on the day

Tigerbalm1

bluntspoon wrote: »

Thanks a mil! Don't want to leave anything to chance on the day

Understandable, especially if google maps was saying it would take an hour! It's probably because the path is a people/bike path that goes over the motorway.

Yohnathan

Can anyone please advise me what topics they wanted for Q3 in the March 2016 Tort paper? I cannot find my reports.

Supermax1988

Yohnathan wrote: »

Can anyone please advise me what topics they wanted for Q3 in the March 2016 Tort paper? I cannot find my reports.

Report said that Causation (Factual and Legal) is where they wanted you to spend most of your time but I imagine you'd need to briefly reference Duty of Care and the breach?

Bayb12

Is there a difference between interlocutory and mandatory injunctions or could you learn them as one?

Tigerbalm1

OscarBN wrote: »

Fe1stressCM wrote: »

Hi, can anyone who has passed company and constitutional advise as to how particular Carolan and Courtney are with respect to case names? I have so many cases rumbled up for Wednesday and Thursdays exams!!

I remember having a mountain of case law in my company exam, 16 in the restriction question alone. Courtney like all examiners likes case law, but I was exhausted by the time I sat constitutional - in the referenda question I could only remember first names Roche, McCrystal and so on, I still came out okay

If you try to aim to have a few cases for each question (5 - 6) you should be ok. Don't panic if you can't remember the name, if you can only remember one name put it down, or if you can't remember it at all put one sentence with the facts and the case might come back to you later in the exam.

To anyone who is sitting exams for the first time - I would say not to panic after reading the above post. Case law is important in questions but you don't need 16 per question to pass. Use them relevantly and don't just throw in a case for no reason.

Tigerbalm1

Also obviously the more case law you have the better as long as you are using it to answer the question. And make sure you leave yourself enough time to answer all the questions.

Fe1r

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what could be left out for contract?

Yohnathan

Does anyone have sample answers for the last Tort sitting please? I would be very very grateful.

The Talking Bread

ANYONE DOING COMPANY?????????????


I have just seen on the city college night before notes from last year that they say you are NOT allowed to mark?? Are we 100% allowed to highlight.


That's Breakdown 1, sorted.

amomcnico91

The Talking Bread wrote: »

ANYONE DOING COMPANY?????????????


I have just seen on the city college night before notes from last year that they say you are NOT allowed to mark?? Are we 100% allowed to highlight.


That's Breakdown 1, sorted.

"1. The only legislative sources candidates may bring with them into the examinations are listed below. Candidates may only bring into the examinations the original, unmarked (except for highlighting and underlining) publications. Photocopies or copies printed from the internet are not acceptable."

I just got this off the Law Society October 2016 Legislative Sources guide.

*exhales slowly*

angelicapickle

Transactions in favour of connected persons made within two years of a company being wound up will now be deemed an ‘unfair preference’ rather than a ‘fraudulent preference’.

Could anyone elaborate on the impact of this change?

lawbear

So... what are people covering for Tort? Failed this twice. It's my last exam ...any pointers would be much appreciated. Not too sure what I'm doing wrong with this one 😕

smeal

lawbear wrote: »

So... what are people covering for Tort? Failed this twice. It's my last exam ...any pointers would be much appreciated. Not too sure what I'm doing wrong with this one 😕

Principles of Negligence
Economic Loss
Nervous Shock
Occupiers Liability
Vicarious Liability
Employers Liability
Professional Negligence
Land Torts
Passing Off
Defamation
Damages
Fire Liability
Animal Liability
Defective Products

Failed it last time also despite being incredibly happy with the paper on the day so also at a loss at how to improve!

XxMCRxBabyxX

Top recommendations from Independent are:

Essentials:
General Negligence
Economic Loss
Product Liability
Nervous Shock
Professional Negligence
Land Based Torts
Defamation

And less so but still in detail:
Vicarious Liability
Trespass to the Person
Damages
Limitation of Actions
Miscellaneous Torts (Fire)