Summer 2015.
1. Answer both parts.
(i). Section 1 of the (fictional) Welfare of Farm Animals Act 2014 states the following:
‘It shall be a criminal offence to keep livestock on farm premises without access to fresh and stable
water supplies, and protection from harsh weather conditions’.
Farmer Giles has kept his sheep on local public land for several years, with unrestricted access to a
local stream. He has never provided cover, believing that sheep will naturally shelter under hedgerows
and bushes when the weather is hostile. During a recent very hot summer the stream dried up and his
entire flock died, after suffering from severe dehydration. He has now been charged under section 1
of the 2014 Act for animal cruelty and the suffering of his sheep. With full discussion of caselaw and
the rules of statutory interpretation, discuss the chances of his conviction under the Act and which
defences, if any, he may raise against the charge.
(70 marks).
(ii) Discuss any three of the following (each carries 10 marks):
The United Kingdom doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty
Implied repeal
Ratio decidendi and obiter dicta
Binding doctrine of precedent
Judicial review
(30 marks).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Answer ALL parts.
i.
Assume a United Kingdom Act of Parliament contains the following section:
‘It shall be a criminal offence to smoke in a public place’.
Billy was smoking a cigarette in his ground floor flat one afternoon. His window is open and the
smoke passed out into the street. There is a bus stop outside his room and members of the public
waiting for a bus started to cough and splutter. With full discussion of the rules of statutory
interpretation and cases, discuss what defence may be available to him, and his prospects for
success in avoiding conviction. (60 marks).
ii.
Discuss the various presumptions which may be made by judges when interpreting
vague or ambiguous legislation. (40 marks).
(Total: 100 marks).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Dobbs, a retired teacher, approached her broker, Andy Carr, for investment advice. Andy advised
Alice to buy shares in a South African company, Africa Commodities Trading Ltd since he had read in
the local financial press that this was a company the shares of which were substantially undervalued.
However, Andy also stressed to Alice that his knowledge of the South African stock market was nonexistent, that the investment would be a great risk, and that she should therefore make her own
enquiries before buying the shares. Alice returned home and, not wanting to rely entirely on Andy’s
advice, sent off an e-mail to a South Africa-based share broking firm and asked for their advice. This
firm confirmed Andy’s view that shares in Africa Commodities Trading were undervalued, could rise
substantially in the next few months, but were also high risk. Alice went ahead and bought shares in
the company. A month later the share price in African Commodities Trading collapsed in value when
it was revealed that the company’s auditors, Earnest and Old Accountants, had failed to conduct a
recent audit properly, resulting in huge undisclosed losses being hidden by the company’s owners
from its shareholders.
With full application of caselaw and statutory provision discuss the potential liability, if any, of all
parties in respect of Alice’s losses and what defences, if any, they may be able to bring in respect of
her claim against them. Your answer should, amongst other issues, discuss the general principle of
tortious liability of professional advisors, the burden and standard of proof in civil actions, and the
general objective of damages in tortious actions.
Total: 100 marks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5.
Bernie Cash is an accountant who provides advice to corporate clients regarding takeovers and
acquisitions. Recently he was asked by a client Aluminium Products Ltd, to advise the company on a
possible takeover of another company, Iron-Filings Ltd. Bernie prepared a detailed cashflow forecast
regarding Iron-Filings Ltd, and its asset value. However, if he had been more diligent in his research
he would have discovered that the company was currently being sued in the United States for
enormous damages for environmental pollution which it is alleged was caused by the dumping of
waste into a major river near its plant in New York. Bernie suggested that as a takeover target it
would be a very good candidate for his client, Aluminium Products Ltd.
After a further three months Aluminium Products Ltd entered into an agreement with another
company, Copper Kings Ltd, to take over Iron-Filings Ltd. They would then ‘tear Iron-Filings Ltd apart’
and sell off its divisions to other companies, at an enormous profit. Both Aluminium Products Ltd
And Copper Kings Ltd relied exclusively on Bernie’s earlier advice regarding Iron-Filings Ltd when
deciding to go ahead with the takeover.
A month after the takeover the truth about the court case against Iron-Filings has emerged, making
the company worthless since the legal action will bankrupt it. Aluminium Products Ltd And Copper
Kings Ltd now realise they are owners of a worthless company; both want to sue Bernie in respect of
his earlier advice. With full discussion of the principles of negligence, using cases in illustration,
discuss the prospects for success of both companies in their legal actions against Bernie. (Total: 100
marks).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------