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

ak4321

Could anyone clarify what exactly happens if a DAC acts beyond its powers? The manual seems to say 2 different things ie that it is and isn't void. The entire UV concept in relation to CA 2014 is quite tricky

Yoop

shellbm wrote: »

Would anyone reckon its safe to leave out Receiver for company as it was on the paper last year??

I'm on the side of 'learn everything regardless of when it comes up' but having said that, Receivership doesn't usually come up that often so if you have almost everything else done I would imagine you're safe. If you've got time though I think it's an okay topic to get your head around; definitely more so than other topics and it tends to be asked in a relatively straightforward way when it does come up.

LawGuy2016

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering does anybody has a sample answer (or even a rough couple of lines of an answer) for Question 5, March 2016. It was a question on Ultra Vires. Part A dealt with a LTD which as per s. 38 of the 2014 now has unlimited capacity. However, Part B dealt with a PLC which is still subject to ultra vires. In his exam report, Courtney mentioned that for Part B case law on ultra vires should have been discussed. However, what case law is he referring to?

i hope somebody can help as I find ultra vires a completely confusing topic.

Thanks.

Gunslinger92

Good luck everyone!

Pickpocket, I fell asleep before I could post more about charitable trusts, sorry :pac:

Pickpocket

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Good luck everyone!

Pickpocket, I fell asleep before I could post more about charitable trusts, sorry :pac:

Ha, me too! But I was up early and have enough for a shot in the dark answer.

Thanks again and best of luck.

Robbo

BASHBAG wrote: »

Company query re. Single Economic Entity for anyone generous enough to give time answering.

In Power Supermarkets v Crumlin Investments was it just Cornelscourt Shopping Centre Limited and Dunnes (Crumlin) Ltd that were treated as an SEE or was the original owner of the shopping centre also included?

Apologies, this is probably glaringly obvious but my brain is gone to sleep.

1. Power Supermarkets Ltd = Quinnsworth's parent company
2. Crumlin Investments = Property Holding Co & Developer of Crumlin Shopping Centre
3. Dunnes Stores (Crumlin) Ltd = Dunnes Trading Company
4. Cornellscourt Shopping Centre Ltd = Company used as a vehicle by the Dunnes group to purchase the share capital of Crumlin Investments Limited

2 and 3 were treated as the Single Economic Entity here.

What's often confusing in this is that the property in question is the Crumlin Shopping Centre. Dunnes used a company called Cornellscourt Shopping Centre Limited to buy out the shares in Crumlin Investments. CSC Ltd were not a named party in this action so you need to put them and their misleading name out of your head.

nuac

Good luck all

Redo91

hullaballoo wrote: »

Kind of, yes. It is confusing because for no good reason that I can see, the writer has introduced pari passu, which is the method by which assets are distributed in an insolvency situation.

Basically, where a debt arises that is supposed to be secured by way of a charge, the failure/voidance of the security means three things:

1. The company is still liable for the debt;
2. The creditor is now an unsecured creditor;
3. The debt can be called in immediately by the creditor.

Then, if the company is solvent, it can repay the debt immediately. If the company is insolvent, the creditor has to settle for whatever is payable on the pari passu basis after the other parties ahead of him in the liquidation.


No, the transactions can still be set aside but not on the basis that the company didn't have capacity. Unlawful transactions can still be set aside.



S 584.

Thanks once again!

You have no idea how poor the manual I'm using is. Company law is confusing enough and they aren't making it any easier.

What if the transfer is lawful? Can a transaction be set aside because the third party had notice that it was ultra vires?

Also when referencing a case from pre-2014 Act and there's a section of the older acts mentioned in the case, do we need to refer to the section as it was at the time or what it is now? As in a case involving a S212 application which at the time was known as a section 205 application. Can we refer to it as S 212 even if it wasn't known as that at the time?

Gunslinger92

I'm happier with that equity paper than I was last time so hopefully I'll have done enough. I knew the maxims would be on the 3 part question!

Lumi77

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

I'm happier with that equity paper than I was last time so hopefully I'll have done enough. I knew the maxims would be on the 3 part question!

Was a good paper.
One question though
At question 1 was it presumption of advancement or 3 certainties.
Thanks

20029422

what was question 1 about?? and does anyone know if the fact in the Dmc question that the woman died from an overdose and not the cancer if that makes a difference

Gunslinger92

Lumi77 wrote: »

Was a good paper.
One question though
At question 1 was it presumption of advancement or 3 certainties.
Thanks

Dear sweet Jesus I hope it was the presumption of advancement :pac:

Lindyloo 1

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

I'm happier with that equity paper than I was last time so hopefully I'll have done enough. I knew the maxims would be on the 3 part question!

Glad to hear it went well for you! I'm pretty happy too so fingers crossed. Great to get the first one out if the way!

Gunslinger92

20029422 wrote: »

what was question 1 about?? and does anyone know if the fact in the Dmc question that the woman died from an overdose and not the cancer if that makes a difference

I'm 99.9% sure it was presumptionn of advancement.

No that doesn't matter, Wilkes v allington case, donor had terminal disease but died from pneumonia, the DMC was still valid

I'm well sickened I didn't decide to tackle a second exam this sitting, tort isn't for another 6 days oh well

20029422

thanks.did the presumption of advancement apply he wasn't father but guardian I think.he transferred the property to avoid creditors not to benefit her??

Gunslinger92

20029422 wrote: »

thanks.did the presumption of advancement apply he wasn't father but guardian I think.he transferred the property to avoid creditors not to benefit her??

I said that it did because he was in loco parentis to her: he assumed responsibility for her care when her parents were killed. I said that because he'd discharged his obligations to the creditors that that doesn't matter and that he won't rebut the presumption of advancement

20029422

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

20029422 wrote: »

thanks.did the presumption of advancement apply he wasn't father but guardian I think.he transferred the property to avoid creditors not to benefit her??

I said that it did because he was in loco parentis to her: he assumed responsibility for her care when her parents were killed. I said that because he'd discharged his obligations to the creditors that that doesn't matter and that he won't rebut the presumption of advancement

I got caught out with advancement wasn't sure really I just knew it generally not the rules for loco parentis I also said no presumption because the transfer to avoid creditors also I said no DMC because of the overdose but overall I was happy enough with it

Gunslinger92

20029422 wrote: »

I got caught out with advancement wasn't sure really I just knew it generally not the rules for loco parentis I also said no presumption because the transfer to avoid creditors also I said no DMC because of the overdose but overall I was happy enough with it

Sure look, don't be worrying about it and about what I and others said. So long as you identified the main principles and applied them to the facts you'll get the bulk of the marks im sure

FreeFallin94

Hi guys, can anyone help me on this fairly specific question about separate corporate personality and subsidiaries. It's come up a few times and I'm not sure what's needed for it -

"Generally speaking the principal in Solomon v Solomon and the statutory rules of company law in which the principle is implicit apply to the relationships between holding companies and subsidiaries and to transactions between them and third parties. Discuss the application of separate corporate personality in the specific context of holding companies and subsidiaries and to transactions between them".

What cases would be good to bring into that type of question? Is it basically similar to the single economic entity question?

20029422

yeah thanks on to company now cant wait ha

Lumi77

20029422 wrote: »

what was question 1 about?? and does anyone know if the fact in the Dmc question that the woman died from an overdose and not the cancer if that makes a difference

It doesn't as Mathew was not claming
She was terminally ill and suicide is not a crime in ireland according to section 2 of criminal law suicide act

Lumi77

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Dear sweet Jesus I hope it was the presumption of advancement :pac:

I got confused myself it appeared loco parentis but was not very sure and was stressed cause they mixed up my hall so had to run from one building to another

Lumi77

Hi guys

Silly question
What happens if u omit a few cases and mix a few.
Do you loose marks?
I have all the principles but worried about these cases.
Thanks

Anna27

Hi, I'm in a panic the Q on today's paper re father/son I'm hoping I answer it correctly by referring to proprietary estoppel? Was I right?? I'm hoping it was not specific performance!! If someone could put me out of my misery would be appreciated!!

Gunslinger92

Anna27 wrote: »

Hi, I'm in a panic the Q on today's paper re father/son I'm hoping I answer it correctly by referring to proprietary estoppel? Was I right?? I'm hoping it was not specific performance!! If someone could put me out of my misery would be appreciated!!

Yeah it's proprietary estoppel, I saw it and was annoyed I didn't revise that topic properly ha.

Redo91

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Hi guys, can anyone help me on this fairly specific question about separate corporate personality and subsidiaries. It's come up a few times and I'm not sure what's needed for it -

"Generally speaking the principal in Solomon v Solomon and the statutory rules of company law in which the principle is implicit apply to the relationships between holding companies and subsidiaries and to transactions between them and third parties. Discuss the application of separate corporate personality in the specific context of holding companies and subsidiaries and to transactions between them".

What cases would be good to bring into that type of question? Is it basically similar to the single economic entity question?

Ya that's a tricky one. There's plenty of examples of cases involving subsidiaries and third parties but if it means directly between a subsidiary and holding company I can't think of any. Maybe you would be able mention transactions involving third parties in any case?

Anna27

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Yeah it's proprietary estoppel, I saw it and was annoyed I didn't revise that topic properly ha.

Thanks for that, these exams make me so jumpy!

Redo91

Edit: Actually maybe Gresham Industries v Cannon? I think it invloved the MD transferring money between the holding company and subsidiaries and he tried to treat ignore the separate legal personality and treat the transactions as personal.

Redo91

Edit: Actually maybe Gresham Industries v Cannon? I think it invloved the MD transferring money between the holding company and subsidiaries and he tried to treat ignore the separate legal personality and treat the transactions as personal.

Lumi77

Anna27 wrote: »

Hi, I'm in a panic the Q on today's paper re father/son I'm hoping I answer it correctly by referring to proprietary estoppel? Was I right?? I'm hoping it was not specific performance!! If someone could put me out of my misery would be appreciated!!

Yes you are right .
Property applied