nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

RandolphEsq

Equity tomorrow. What are people predicting/hoping for with injunctions. I would like some sort of essay on Campus Oil principles and deviation from them or an essay on Anton Piller, Marevas.

Find more posts tagged with

fe1 preparation

fe1's

Quick Links

Comments

Redo91

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!

You might have done better than you think. These exams are notoriously difficult to judge.

Ya I did both those too. Even though I had the Act I couldn't think of what sections to mention for the SLP action so just had case law. Happy with the foss v harbottle one too. Mentioned all the extra remedies, broad criteria and that you can have proceedings in camera under section 212 so derivative actions are basically obsolete.

For anyone that did question 1 on ostensible authority did you mention to the 3 exceptions to the rule in Turquands? Also I only had three cases (freeman & Lockyer, Turquand and Aib v Ardmore). Do people think that's enoiugh?

Redo91

graduate555 wrote: »

Guys I hate post mortems but.. Was Jackie liable in the directors duties question today? I haven't anything in my notes about non directors so it's kind of annoying me :P

I just said her and the husband had to return all the earnings from the website. I didn't have any notes on that either so hope I don't lose too many marks for saying that.

Peekaboodles

Would anyone be willing to send me on the grid for EU law? I know I had it before but I cannot find it anywhere on my laptop or emails! Thanks so much!

XxMCRxBabyxX

One day I'll pass company, however, today was not that day!

Redo91

What did people say for the restriction question on the three directors? I said the non-executive could be restricted as he didn't attend meetings and he was a solicitor so that could be taken into account. Said the sales director could be restricted as she continued to supply the customers who weren't paying so significantly contributed to the insolvency of the company. I said the MD wasn't liable as he only continued to trade for a month and wound up the company when he decided there was no immediate chance of trading out of it.

Crednav

Quizes for larning case law and statute for criminal https://www.sporcle.com/playlists/DJDeepBradshak/criminal-fe1-study
Good luck!

20029422

I thought most people would be happy with the company paper restriction corporate personality duties Foss v harbottle unfair preference/fraudulent I thought these were the more favourable topics

smeal

odwyer94 wrote: »

That did not go well...

I sat the company paper in the last sitting before the Act changed. Was reasonably well prepared but on the exam day I had the biggest brain freeze. I could see the cases in my head but they just wouldn't go on paper. I didn't even have the Acts with me to bulk up my answers. I scribbled down 5 pathetic attempts at answers with minimal to no case law to back up anything I was saying and left 45 mins early. I was so annoyed with myself that I would have to redo the paper and completely re-learn the new Acts.. I even started studying for the repeat before the results came out! Ended up getting 50 on the button so it just goes to show even though you might think the exam was a sinking ship the Examiner is obviously generous with marks so don't worry

FreeFallin94

Not sure I passed that at all.

Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions

Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.

And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.

Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.

The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.

Redo91

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Not sure I passed that at all.

Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.

And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.

Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.

The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.

Depends what argument you took with the foss v harbottle question I'm guessing. I said derivative actions aren't very applicable any more so I mostly focused on S 212 and how it compares favourably to a derivative action.

What Section did you mention for the question on SLP. It said to mention case law and the statute but I couldn't find any sections on it!

20029422

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Not sure I passed that at all.

Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.

And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.

Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.

The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.

I didn't notice that at all I mentioned directors duties and ultra vires in other questions so I'm the same boat as you if u wrote all the restriction law down then that should be ok.it did not involve 212 just foss

FreeFallin94

Redo91 wrote: »

Depends what argument you took with the foss v harbottle question I'm guessing. I said derivative actions aren't very applicable any more so I mostly focused on S 212 and how it compares favourably to a derivative action.

What Section did you mention for the question on SLP. It said to mention case law and the statute but I couldn't find any sections on it!

Damn, I very much focused on Foss and the exceptions. Said they weren't really relevant but didn't focus on the s. 212 at all

I feel like it was worded poorly because I couldn't tell if it was meant to be a compare and contrast style question or if it was meant to look at one or the other. Hopefully I get some marks!

I mentioned the provisions on fraudulent and reckless trading, just some tax acts that pierce the veil, and I said health and safety legislation can sometimes be used to impose individual liability on directors. No idea if it's right but my manual had those as one of the exceptions to separate legal personality.

odwyer94

smeal wrote: »

I sat the company paper in the last sitting before the Act changed. Was reasonably well prepared but on the exam day I had the biggest brain freeze. I could see the cases in my head but they just wouldn't go on paper. I didn't even have the Acts with me to bulk up my answers. I scribbled down 5 pathetic attempts at answers with minimal to no case law to back up anything I was saying and left 45 mins early. I was so annoyed with myself that I would have to redo the paper and completely re-learn the new Acts.. I even started studying for the repeat before the results came out! Ended up getting 50 on the button so it just goes to show even though you might think the exam was a sinking ship the Examiner is obviously generous with marks so don't worry

That is very encouraging thank you ðŸ˜Š

Redo91

20029422 wrote: »

I didn't notice that at all I mentioned directors duties and ultra vires in other questions so I'm the same boat as you if u wrote all the restriction law down then that should be ok.it did not involve 212 just foss

I mainly mentioned S 212 and compared it to Foss. I mean wasn't the quote wrong to say the rule in Foss v Harbottle is still important. I thought any oppressed shareholders would use S 212 these days.

Redo91

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Damn, I very much focused on Foss and the exceptions. Said they weren't really relevant but didn't focus on the s. 212 at all I feel like it was worded poorly because I couldn't tell if it was meant to be a compare and contrast style question or if it was meant to look at one or the other. Hopefully I get some marks!

I mentioned the provisions on fraudulent and reckless trading, just some tax acts that pierce the veil, and I said health and safety legislation can sometimes be used to impose individual liability on directors. No idea if it's right but my manual had those as one of the exceptions to separate legal personality.

Ah ya I never thought of DPP v Roseberry! Hopefully I mentioned enough cases to get the pass on that questions. Worried about the Foss v Harbottle question now if people were mostly focusing on derivative actions. I figured we are supposed to disagree with the statement and if we are then you should focus on why (ie S 212 is more effective).

20029422

Redo91 wrote: »

I mainly mentioned S 212 and compared it to Foss. I mean wasn't the quote wrong to say the rule in Foss v Harbottle is still important. I thought any oppressed shareholders would use S 212 these days.

I took it as though 212 is dominant now exceptions to Foss are still important discuss

nuac

Could I suggest to all those who still have to sit papers not to spend any time having inquests on papers just done. Can drive one around the bend.

Concentrate on the papers yet to come. Keep going to the final bell.

All the mods on LD have been thru law exams, and you have our sympathy.

One of our most erudite mods Hullabolla proposes, once the current exams are over, to re-edit this thread giving each subject it's own area or sub-thread which will make references easier.

Good luck all.

btw it is possible to practise tort successfully without actually knowing all the exceptions to the exceptions to the rule in Rylands and Fletcher.:)

Anna27

Company over us, I actually have no idea how good/bad my answers were. I just threw 5 answers down and to hell with it, we're all in the one boat where that paper was concerned!

Over a week to cram for property and contracts, I have notes prepared- am I being unrealistic that I can learn all this stuff in a short space of time??

Redo91

20029422 wrote: »

I took it as though 212 is dominant now exceptions to Foss are still important discuss

Well I guess the fact it said discuss leaves it open to interpretation. Hopefully the examiner sees it that way anyway! :P

shellbm

Redo91 wrote: »

I just said her and the husband had to return all the earnings from the website. I didn't have any notes on that either so hope I don't lose too many marks for saying that.

I THINK Jackie had something to do with s227..literally mentioned it in one line. I hope we don't lose marks on that, i dont even think my manual mentioned it at all!? Ugh at least its done !

shellbm

FreeFallin94 wrote: »

Not sure I passed that at all.

Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.

And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.

Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.

The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.

In hindsight that is literally 4 marks, don't worry at all.

Redo91

shellbm wrote: »

I THINK Jackie had something to do with s227..literally mentioned it in one line. I hope we don't lose marks on that, i dont even think my manual mentioned it at all!? Ugh at least its done !

Ya it wasn't in my manual at all.

I really hope I don't get penalised for my Foss v Harbottle answer. I didn't agree with the statement so I focused on why S 212 was a better way to proceed then a derivative action.

LegalAnna

I know everyone is just finished company but any chance anyone could help me? I am doing EU and I thought I would be covered but now I don't know if I'm covered and I'm really really panicking. I am covering
Fmw
Citizenship
Sources
Direct effect and supremacy
Fmg
Competition law, mergers and state aid
Prelim ref
General principles
Judicial review
Please help!!

MeganC1554

LegalAnna wrote: »

I know everyone is just finished company but any chance anyone could help me? I am doing EU and I thought I would be covered but now I don't know if I'm covered and I'm really really panicking. I am covering
Fmw
Citizenship
Sources
Direct effect and supremacy
Fmg
Competition law, mergers and state aid
Prelim ref
General principles
Judicial review
Please help!!

I'm doing EU tomorrow also and starting to panic as so much to condense. I am covering the same except I didn't include comp law...

and doing infringement procedure. I should have done state aid but I don't think I have time to now start a full new topic.

LegalAnna

MeganC1554 wrote: »

I'm doing EU tomorrow also and starting to panic as so much to condense. I am covering the same except I didn't include comp law... and doing infringement procedure. I should have done state aid but I don't think I have time to now start a full new topic.

Mod deletionThank God hopefully it'll just be a nice paper!! Or I'll be able to at least half attempt 5!

MeganC1554

LegalAnna wrote: »

MeganC1554 wrote: »

I'm doing EU tomorrow also and starting to panic as so much to condense. I am covering the same except I didn't include comp law... and doing infringement procedure. I should have done state aid but I don't think I have time to now start a full new topic.

God hopefully it'll just be a nice paper!! Or I'll be able to at least half attempt 5!

Fingers crossed we get a good paper. He might thow in a few answer a or b questions. That would be ideal. I have a feeling it's going to be a long night of cramming.

the great communicator

LegalAnna wrote: »

The examiner is apparently really harsh aswell! God hopefully it'll just be a nice paper!! Or I'll be able to at least half attempt 5!

The pass rate is always 70% at least, there's plenty of choice on the paper and the last two exams set by the new examiner have been very fair. It's long and complicated but if you answer five questions to any extent you'll be through

TheCrutzer

LegalAnna wrote: »

God hopefully it'll just be a nice paper!! Or I'll be able to at least half attempt 5!

Mod deletion

monroe89

LegalAnna wrote: »

God hopefully it'll just be a nice paper!! Or I'll be able to at least half attempt 5!

The exam report for October said that anything with part a and part b will always contain choice from now (you won't have to do both parts) unless anything is stated otherwise, so there's sure to be some choice bumping up the possibilities...hopefully!

20029422

does anyone know why there is a week gap I done equity and company now I've loads a time off.only wondering why it's like this