jjjjjop wrote: » The trustee q was only 2 parts
stav wrote: » Panic setting in majorly, can't seem to remember if I read the Equity questions correctly today because I was dealing with the system logging me out constantly. Can someone confirm that we only had to answer only 2 parts of the last question (trustees) and 2 parts of the note question? Or did I screw up?
ALK2! wrote: » I wouldn’t worry about the toilet. I’ve went a couple of times and same in November. I really hurry so I’m usually gone for less than a minute but nothing was ever flagged. I’d say as long as your not gone for ages. Also for secret trust q- I said that William would hold the property in trust for Deirdre and Michael as benificiaries. I also mentioned about them being TIC. But I think I may have completely misread the re Stead case and kind of regretting putting that in now. Fingers crossed it went well. It’s so hard to know. And good luck to anyone with other exams left to take.
vkfe1 wrote: » I'm the kind of person who will go to the bathroom like 3 times during a normal exam sitting because i drink so much water. I sat two exams in November and went to the bathroom SO much but i was really quick. I asked the law soc beforehand and they said it shouldn't be a problem. It wasn't an issue at all and i passed both. Also re. the day dreaming - i wouldn't worry. Even if you did have exam notes pinned to your wall (i know you didn't but for argument sake), they need absolute proof to fail you for that reason. So don't worry
FEONE wrote: » I could be wrong but I think there is a case called Re Monolithic Buildings which holds that intention should not restrict someone from validly asserting their rights. He properly registered a charge after someone else who he knew had not registered it properly but it did not matter that he knew because by registering his own charge properly he has sufficient legal rights. That was my take from it anyway but I could be wrong
orlaghs wrote: » does anyone know what happens if the system thinks you were cheating? i was really stumped for a lot of that equity exam and stared at the table/out the window a lot. also went to the bathroom twice so i'm worried it will be flagged
AA247 wrote: » Thanks for replying. Ok sorry still confused. So to cut it short the charge the applicant (Shaws) were looking to register late was created in 2003 or around that (not registered). Frank Bell validly registered a charge in 2013. Shaw's wanted the charge created in 2003 to be registered in priority to Frank's as it was created first and they argued he knew this etc. but court didn't agree to retrospectively register in priority of Frank's, but agreed to register from date of app which was 2014. Correct or not correct?
Katniss1998 wrote: » No it ranks in priority from the date of the application to the court on rather than from the original date of creation of the charge.
jjjjjop wrote: » Did anyone count their paragraphs in their online answers? i counted mine this morning and on average each answer was 6-8 paragraphs.. this sounds very short to me haha
Law101 wrote: » I said Deirdre and michael will hold the holiday home together
AA247 wrote: » Company Guys can anyone confirm incase i'm reading it wrong, that in Frank Bell & Co; Shaws Application that Shaws were allowed late registration of the charge but Frank Bell's still ranked in priority as it was validity registered in 2013?
LoJB wrote: » Does anyone know how tough the equity marker is? I put so much work into equity but definitely feel I won’t have passed. 3 of my questions, I would think were definitely passable 1 of my questions contained very little case law so I’m unsure whether it will pass 1 of my questions was a problem question that I didn’t know how to answer so essentially wrote what I would have for an essay and tried to keep referring to the question
awsah wrote: » heres the griffith sample answer
Iso_123 wrote: » I talked about the communication cases - prendiville, blackwell, re boyes and then I used the rule in Re Stead because he only communicated to one of the trustees. I basically said in the end that because his words in the will make it clear that he intended communication to all of the trustees and he failed to do that William holds his interest on resulting trust and Michael takes beneficially BUT don't take this as the correct answer because i genuienly dont know if it is or not. Didn't really like this q
stav wrote: » This happened to me 5+ times too today because of my mousepad!!! It stressed me out so much, not quite sure what to do lmao. Did your time keep running?
stonewash wrote: » When I was doing the exam I got sent out to the lobby twice because I touched the mouse pad thing (it’s very sensitive on my laptop), is this ok? Did that happen to anyone in November?
lawDani wrote: » First time sitting equity there. Defiantly only answered about three questions good id say. Is the paper marked hard in comparison to others? And has anybody passed ever only answering four ? Haha Heya October
