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

Gunslinger92

Gonna ignore my own advice for just a sec and ask what did ye talk about for the trustees duties question? I worked the duty to invest and Cowan v scargill in but I hope that the question wasn't limited to duty not to make a profit ..

shellbm

Redo91 wrote: »

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?

By any change is this referring to the courts lifting the corporate veil where the subsidiary appears to be acting as an agent to the holding company?

I would have cited Stone, Smith and Knight v Birmingham Corporation and the test that was applied; the court looked to whether the parent was the "head and the brains" of the sub, whether the success of the sub was due to the skill and the direction of the parent company etc. Also Fyffes v DCC and Laffoy J's decision here (case relating to insider trading).

Am I way off?

Lumi77

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Gonna ignore my own advice for just a sec and ask what did ye talk about for the trustees duties question? I worked the duty to invest and Cowan v scargill in but I hope that the question wasn't limited to duty not to make a profit ..

I only addressed duty to conflict and duty not to profit
I didn't address duty to invest at all.
General quick adress of their duties at the start.

Redo91

shellbm wrote: »

Redo91 wrote: »

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?

By any change is this referring to the courts lifting the corporate veil where the subsidiary appears to be acting as an agent to the holding company?

I would have cited Stone, Smith and Knight v Birmingham Corporation and the test that was applied; the court looked to whether the parent was the "head and the brains" of the sub, whether the success of the sub was due to the skill and the direction of the parent company etc. Also Fyffes v DCC and Laffoy J's decision here (case relating to insider trading).

Am I way off?

I'm probably reading it wrong but does the question refer to any change?

Is Smith Stone and Knight relating to agency and then DHN Ltd dealing with a single economic entity? I'll get those cases mixed up a bit.

Robbie25808

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

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 could be wrong but I said there was a presumption of advancement due to McCabe v Ulster bank?
He could rebut this by showing contrary intention?
Also as the legal act has not taken place that could be used to rebut the presumption of advancement also? Tribes v tribes case?
I could be all wrong though.

Crednav

I said Tribe v Tribe too, it's persuasive but could be accepted. He didn't actually defraud the creditors so doesn't fall under the illegality exclusion like Parkes v Parkes but since it's evidence of his intention before the transfer he can use it against the donee. This was a skeleton answer though so..

LegalAnna

Hey,

Does anyone have any tips on what is coming up in EU law? Just finished equity and sitting down to study the next one! Really really behind on eu!

Crednav

@mods, I made an account to share quizzes I made on sporcle for company and criminal but I can't share a link until I make five posts. Anyway around this please?

Lindyloo 1

laurenburne wrote: »

Would anyone have the independent tips on what's likely to come up for Tort pretty please?

They do a what's essential to know list of topics and then a less so but still in detail list of topics.

I have griffith sample answers for all other subjects that I can give in return

Just wondering if you got a response to this. Tort is so vast!

Gunslinger92

Robbie25808 wrote: »

I could be wrong but I said there was a presumption of advancement due to McCabe v Ulster bank?
He could rebut this by showing contrary intention?
Also as the legal act has not taken place that could be used to rebut the presumption of advancement also? Tribes v tribes case?
I could be all wrong though.

Yeah I said there was a presumption of advancement. I had tribes v tribes too just said he wouldn't rebut the presumption. But equity is discretionary and all that :P

FreeFallin94

Hi guys, another question for company (I have SO much to cover for this exam!) are the 5 principles set out in La Moselle Clothing still the main authority to apply if I were to get a restriction problem question - I know the court in Re Mitek criticised the sort of box-ticking approach from that case and said all cases should be identified on their individual facts, so I'm not sure if La Moselle is as relevant anymore! Many thanks

MeganC1554

Well done everybody on getting through the first exam. I think I did better this time around myself so fingers crossed. Wasn't a bad paper at all.

For DMC I referred to the fact that a gift made in contemplation of suicide is not DMC - Agnew v Belfast Banking and referred to Wilkes v Allington. And just stuck in king v dubrey regarding the DMC failing as donor had sufficient time to remake the will. And referred to the 1 month left to live may fall into this remit.

In proprietary estoppel, i based on Gillett v holt decision.

Here's hoping I get the pass mark this time.. I was a bag of nerves going in and I really don't know why.

Anybody out there any predictions for EU? I'd really appreciate it.

Crednav

I did the same, phew. The PE question was really like a case last year called Finnegan v Hand

MeganC1554

Yea I had a feeling it was quite similar to a question last year.... do you think 5 half decent questions will get a pass?

Crednav

I only saw it last night, got very lucky. I did three full questions a half a question and then bullet points so you've more of a chance than me. Once you've 5 questions you're fine

Redo91

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Hi guys, another question for company (I have SO much to cover for this exam!) are the 5 principles set out in La Moselle Clothing still the main authority to apply if I were to get a restriction problem question - I know the court in Re Mitek criticised the sort of box-ticking approach from that case and said all cases should be identified on their individual facts, so I'm not sure if La Moselle is as relevant anymore! Many thanks

Ya I'd still apply it. I'd also mention Re Tralee Beef and Lamb where it was said that as well as questioning whether the director complied with their duties under the Act, it should also be asked whether they have carried out their common law duties.

Is it just me that's worried about identifying what cases apply to reckless v fraudulent trading and then restriction v disqualification? Certainly with reckless v fraudulent trading in struggling to identify distinguishing features in the cases under heading. Even in my manual it has PSK Construction under both reckless and fraudulent trading. It send the 1st repondent was found guilty of both. Is thay even possible?

Crednav

I think so? Here some recent examples of when restriction orders ere made:
If dealing with a company “in crisis” from moment of appointment, Court will consider impact of same on ability of D to organise compliance with statutory obligations - Kirk v Kershaw & Ors (2016)
Failure of Ds to maintain proper books & records here went far beyond failure to comply with technical statutory requirements. Their absence made it impossible for liq to satisfy himself of a proper basis for big payments to related entities - Taite v Connolly & Anor (2016)
Continuing to trade after the commencement of the voluntary winding up of the company was one of the grounds for order here, although respondent didn’t show up at application - McMahon v Larkin & Anor (2016)

BASHBAG

Quick Company query!!!

Are the main points of "the Coslett" case that a floating charge can be created without either party knowing and the effect of not registering said charge after its creation?

Or is there more to it that I am missing?

Ferry.Man

What do people think are the main topics to focus on for EU?

I'm going for:
Institutions
Sources of Law
GP
Supremacy
Direct Effect
MS Liability
Judicial Review
Equality
Article 101 and 102.

Anything I should leave out or include?

LegalAnna

Hey guys I handed up my blackstones today for eu. Wondering if anyone knows whether reg 139/2004 in relation to mergers is in there? Thanks so much!

Robbie25808

Equity:

Do we follow etridge in Ireland?
I used the case of Ulster bank v Fitzgerald and said not for commercial relationships but was vague in my generally answer to it?

Lumi77

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Equity:

Do we follow etridge in Ireland?
I used the case of Ulster bank v Fitzgerald and said not for commercial relationships but was vague in my generally answer to it?

Yes we do
Hogan was there and Smith Irish cases
O' brien could have been used also

shellbm

Redo91 wrote: »

I'm probably reading it wrong but does the question refer to any change?

Is Smith Stone and Knight relating to agency and then DHN Ltd dealing with a single economic entity? I'll get those cases mixed up a bit.

I meant *chance* sorry. Yep, that's what I have anyway!

FreeFallin94

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Equity:

Do we follow etridge in Ireland?
I used the case of Ulster bank v Fitzgerald and said not for commercial relationships but was vague in my generally answer to it?

Etridge was followed in Ireland in Ulster Bank v Roche where it was held that a bank is put on inquiry where the guarantee has a non-commercial element to it. I think Roche pretty much overruled Fitzgerald in Ireland.

Robbie25808

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Etridge was followed in Ireland in Ulster Bank v Roche where it was held that a bank is put on inquiry where the guarantee has a non-commercial element to it. I think Roche pretty much overruled Fitzgerald in Ireland.

Perfect think I said Roche and fitzy both said we follow it for non commercial **** it anywya be grand.

monroe89

Oh lads I made a total mess of my paper today, flew threw my first 3 questions but my last 2 were a disaster. I just didn't prepare the right things in detail 😞 3 more to go but so disheartened and annoyed with myself. Ugh 😢

graduate555

monroe89 wrote: »

Oh lads I made a total mess of my paper today, flew threw my first 3 questions but my last 2 were a disaster. I just didn't prepare the right things in detail 😞 3 more to go but so disheartened and annoyed with myself. Ugh 😢

Don't worry, in my experience 3 good and 2 meh questions is normal. I'm sure it wasn't a disaster - once you got something of relevance down and made a stab at it. Just keep the dead down for the next week or two and you'll make it alright

Gunslinger92

Crednav wrote: »

I did the same, phew. The PE question was really like a case last year called Finnegan v Hand

Flipping knew it was based on a new case, past estoppel questions have been big long paragraphs with sliiightly different facts to today's one

monroe89

graduate555 wrote: »

Don't worry, in my experience 3 good and 2 meh questions is normal. I'm sure it wasn't a disaster - once you got something of relevance down and made a stab at it. Just keep the dead down for the next week or two and you'll make it alright

Thanks, appreciate the response I think I've been too calm all along, bound to have a bit of a meltdown at some point! Will just power through and hope the next 3 are a little more positive

ak4321

Redo91 wrote: »

Ya I'd still apply it. I'd also mention Re Tralee Beef and Lamb where it was said that as well as questioning whether the director complied with their duties under the Act, it should also be asked whether they have carried out their common law duties.

Is it just me that's worried about identifying what cases apply to reckless v fraudulent trading and then restriction v disqualification? Certainly with reckless v fraudulent trading in struggling to identify distinguishing features in the cases under heading. Even in my manual it has PSK Construction under both reckless and fraudulent trading. It send the 1st repondent was found guilty of both. Is thay even possible?

Not covering reckless and fraudulent, should there be any difficulty in identifying what's restrictions and disqualifications from fraudulent and reckless though? Or are characteristics of f&l completely different?