Best of luck tomorrow guys. If I had one piece of advice it would be to focus on getting the basic principles across before piling into the caselaw: good students can often fall down on rushing to introduce cases before they have identified in simple terms what the question is directed at.
John Freeman Westland Law -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Doodles Sent: 24 March 2009 13:34 To: FE-1 Study Group Subject: Re: Company Q Very helpful indeed thanks a million. Gives a broader prespective on SLP and hopefully, if this topic is sitting on our paper somewhere right now, that we will be better able to pinpoint what our esteemed examiner is expecting from us tomorrow. On Mar 24, 12:37 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Not totally clear what is meant but I think a fair guess is that the > candidate is to avoid the 'list everything I know about separate legal > personality' approach and is required to provide some analysis and > comment. Arguably some of the 'exceptions to the rule' are not > exceptions at all. > > Maybe something to note here is that sometimes textbooks refer to > lifting the corporate veil when in fact that is not what is happening. > From the beginning (Salomon v Salomon) it was clear that the separate > legal personality of a company could not be used as a vehicle for > fraud or illegality. Arguably, when the court disregards separate > legal personality in those circumstances it is not an exception to the > general rule: it is just an application of the general rule. > > Some of the exceptions might include: agency, single economic entity, > human characteristics etc. these are exceptions in the true sense > because the court in Salomon made it clear that a company is generally > not the agent of its corporators or members, and close economic > identity between the members and the company does not mean they are > the same thing. > > Is this helpful? I've attached a mind map showing some of the case > law. To bring in a recent example, there was an attempt recently in > the Commercial Court to make Sean Dunne (the developer) personally > liable for what he said was a debt of one of his companies. > > http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0127/1232923367382.html > > John Freemanwww.westlandlaw.net > > On 24 Mar, 12:14, 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!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
