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 😢
MeganC1554 wrote: » Seriously these exams are so unpredictable. You may have three strong answers and 2 alright answers which may be more than to get you over the 50%. Your three strong answers may be a whole lot better than my half attempt 5 questions. You just never know. So I really wouldn't be thinking negative whatsoever, you did great to get 3 good questions. Believe me your not the only one that has been in that predicament. Chin up.
ak4321 wrote: » 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?
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?
Redo91 wrote: » Also sorry for asking this again but what is everyone's approach to pre-2014 Act cases in terms of the legislation. For example if a case involved what was at the time a S 205 application, when referencing it could you simply call it a S 212 application?
hullaballoo wrote: » Redo91 wrote: » Also sorry for asking this again but what is everyone's approach to pre-2014 Act cases in terms of the legislation. For example if a case involved what was at the time a S 205 application, when referencing it could you simply call it a S 212 application? I would refer to it as "the old s. 205" if the case was decided pre-2014 Act. It's the quickest way to get across the point that you are referring to the section as it was pre-2014 and it's not going to be possible to spell out "pre-2014 regime" or whatever every time. Obviously you need to recognise that there are differences between the two regimes and cases decided under the pre-2014 regime might not be decided the same way today, although with s. 205 oppression etc. it's more or less the same.
BASHBAG wrote: » Just a couple of company queries that I'm hoping some kind soul could help me out with, both regarding past papers. 1. Where a shareholder's agreement is in place, which stipulates that the company will support that particular shareholder's business, would failure to comply with such an agreement constitute "oppression" re s.212? 2. In one of the restriction questions the company's books and records are destroyed in one of the directors cars. I was just wondering what kind of bearing this would have when answering a problem question? I can't find the exact question now but I'm pretty sure it said that up until that point the books had been kept properly. Thanks!!!
kyliewyote7 wrote: » OK re: restriction - case law puts a significant emphasis on ensuring safety of records (Re Carera - directors were responsible for safety of the records where the company was dormant) but all the circumstances will be taken into account (Re Costello Doors - the bookkeeper was no longer employed so didn't ground the restriction). That's my approach anyway! I could be completely off base with shareholder's agreements - my gut reaction was they are more likely to be actionable in contract rather than S212 - but thinking about I am now doubting myself!
Lindyloo 1 wrote: » Just wondering if you got a response to this. Tort is so vast!
laurenburne wrote: » I didn't lindyloo sorry. I know. It's my last exam. Failed it three times already and I absolutely have to pass to keep my training contract. So much pressure from my parents and everyone asking me "you must be very prepared this time are you" you would think!! I think the pressure gets to me and I mess it up. Not being able to sleep at all has really affected me recalling stuff I have studied in the past. Feel like such an embarrassment at this stage. If annnnyone has any tips to give u would greatly appreciate it. I have looked at (but need to learn off) mos chapters bar occupiers liability, damages, employer liability, state liability. Feel like I know nothing despite lots of study. It's very frustrating. It's crazy how nerves can affect these exams.
OscarBN wrote: » Lauren, forget the pressure, the tc etc, forget the big picture, focus only on the exam. I have only 1 left too - the information you will remember from previously sitting tort will amaze you......honestly. I let nerves get the better of me last time, just breathe take control and think, right bring it on!
odwyer94 wrote: » That did not go well...
SoulSearchR wrote: » Hi all, Anyone any ideas on what I could possibly leave out for Criminal...running short on time, so much to cover. Also, does anybody know have night before notes been posted yet? All I can find ate the 2016 ones? Bes of luck with exams guys!!!!
Redo91 wrote: » What questions did you do?
odwyer94 wrote: » Redo91 wrote: » What questions did you do? 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 I think. I felt so confident going into that exam and then I just went blank first and then had difficulty working out exactly what some of the questions were asking. I knew all of the theory last night and this morning I just applied it all wrongly. I think my answers for the SLP question and the Foss v Harbottle were ok but the remaining three were not, in fact I'd say two of them were diabolical and I hadn't a clue what I was talking about. Should have practised more past papers I think!
