[sadiaakbar1]

You got it wrong, i didn’t mean it the way you think i meant it. also i am absolutely aware of the reason behind your ‘its a question I cant answer’ because like you said earlier, this is English law for us.

Regardless of the fact whether the change has been incorporated, we still opt for 14 days in the exam for auditors removal notice to registrar?

The 28 and 21 days part is clear. Thank you.

Is UCTA only for business to business contracts?

Also i think you missed the second paragraph, the 14 days thing..

[sadiaakbar1]

Also the question in Kaplan clearly states in BLOCK letter that members CANNOT petition the compulsory winding up of the company. What is one supposed to do in such scenario?

[sadiaakbar1]

The change has not been incorporated yet, right? So if we are judged in the exam on auditor removal notice to registrar, we opt for 14 days. Right?

Also i am rather confused with the open tuition notes where its states 14 days notice for both ordinary and special resolution without any explanation. So that notice is to the members in accordance with the 14 days notice that its given for general meeting, right? And there is no such mention of filing the notice with the Registrar in the notes which means that we simple have to go with the 15 days period, right?

Also could you please differentiate between 28 days notice to company and 21 days notice to the members for special notice. I mean why are there two separate notices?

And there is this MCQ which confused me.

Mark has been in continuously employed by stone ltd for 18 months, he is dismissed with notice by the employer for requesting paid holiday leaves.

A. The reason for dismissal is automatically unfair and so Mark can bring action for unfair dismissal regardless of his length of employment.
B. Mark cannot bring an action for unfair dismissal since he has not been in continuous employment for more than 2 years.

Why is A the answer? Because from what I know you cannot bring an action for unfair dismissal if you haven’t been in continuous employment for 2 years except for dismissal for maternity cases.

Apologies for my haphazardness..

P.S: I cant help but feel proud that you don’t know the answers-)

[sadiaakbar1]

Better. Much better.
Thank you so much, Mike.

[sadiaakbar1]

Nope. Not okay.
This is just not making sense to me. Especially the ‘evidenced in writing’ one.
But Thank you so much for helping me out.
I have an exam on 3rd of October. Hopefully wont be tested on these topics.

[sadiaakbar1]

Okay but doesn’t high court sometimes does act as an appellate court for magistrates? I encountered a similar question elsewhere in BPP and there the answer stated that had there been an option available for high court alongside crown courts we would choose high court’s queen bench division.

Also I get that it is talking about being evidenced in writing. Although I am not sure what exactly the difference is. Even if this is the case, contract of guarantee and contracts of land must always be evidenced in writing. Why are we opting for ‘C’ then?

Thank you.

[sadiaakbar1]

Thank you for the detailed answer.
I, however, have the old kit with me applicable till August 2017. But that doesn’t justify why it has D as an answer for the same question.

[sadiaakbar1]

Why wouldn’t the veil be lifted if the director is disqualified?
The solution in my kaplan kit is D which implies that the veil would be lifted if the director is disqualified i.e he is involved in fraudulent and wrongful trading or he becomes bankrupt etc.
Please clear this confusion.

[Author]

Posts