Hi Doodles The examiner def could have been clearer but I think it means that candidates should set out the general rule of separate personality- (Salomon, Macaura v Northern Assurance Company, Al Underwood v Bank of Liverpool, O'Neill v Ryan, Prudential Assurance v Newman, Stein v Blake , Lee v Lee's Air Farming , Roundabout Tavern, Battle v Irish Art Promotions and State (McInerney) v Dublin Corp) before discussing the exceptions to the general rule - ie when the court will lift or ignore the veil.
Then again, I could be wrong. My head is wrecked with company.... Mar 24, 12:14 pm, Doodles <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all fellow crammers - have any of you looked at Q7 Oct 07 re Sep > Legal Pers. The examiner in his comments stated that > > "if the question was read accurately candidates realised that it asked > them to consider the circumstances where disregarding the corporate > veil is an exception to the general rule, rather than asking them to > list all the circumstances where the courts have lifed the veil." > > What exactly is he looking for here??? > > Thanks! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
