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). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------