FAMILY LAW-
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FAMILY LAW-
ANSWER EACH QUESTIONS DISTINCTIVELY MAKING REFERENCE
TO CASES AND ONLINE ARTICLES WHERE POSSIBLE. ALSO,
MAKE USE OF THE LAW STYLE OF REFERENCES WHICH IS THE
OSCOLA REFRENCE WHICH ENTAILS THE USE OF FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.
ASSESSMENT QUESTION AND THE WORD COUNT IS 3000 WORDS
Bernard met Lenina at a science fiction convention in Las Vegas in 2005. Bernard is a film producer who is British and lives in London. Lenina was then starting out as a science fiction writer; she had just finished writing her first screenplay and went to the convention to make contacts in the hope that a producer might be interested in her script. Lenina – who also lives in London – grew up confused about her gender. Although female in physical appearance, she never felt completely comfortable living as a woman, and has spent periods of time living ostensibly as a man. Bernard and Lenina’s relationship quickly developed and they started living together about six months after first meeting. Bernard was keen to get married, but Lenina – although she loved him – did not want to. Bernard threatened to tell Lenina’s very religious parents about her living as a man unless she agreed to marry him. They married in 2007 at Chelsea register office when Bernard was 44 and Lenina was 26.
Prior to marrying, Bernard asked his solicitors to prepare a pre-nuptial agreement which stated that, in the event of divorce, neither party would have a claim on the other’s assets (Lenina had virtually no assets anyway) except Bernard would pay Lenina a sum equivalent to £10,000 for every year they were married. Lenina was advised by her solicitors not to sign the agreement, but she did anyway. Bernard has substantial personal wealth: a house in London worth about £3million; a cottage on the Suffolk coast worth £500,000; an apartment in the French Alps worth £1million; an investment portfolio valued at around £4million; and a 1967 Aston Martin DB6 worth £150,000. His income varies from year to year but has averaged £1million per year over the last ten years. Lenina has not been in paid employment since they married but has been trying to write new screenplays.
In 2012, much to their surprise, Lenina became pregnant and gave birth to John. Bernard was initially an attentive father but then he began a big film project which meant he spent long periods of time away from home. Whenever he was at home, he was moody and detached, and always on his phone or computer dealing with work issues. He would also drink heavily and occasionally smoke cannabis in the house which, he claimed, helped him deal with the stress. Lenina recently found intimate text messages on his phone from someone called ?�Sam’. When she confronted Bernard about these he denied there was anything going on between him and Sam. Over the last few weeks Bernard has become more moody and aggressive. He has no patience with John and often shouts at him when he is crying. He was also violent towards Lenina on two occasions, once when he threw his phone at her (causing a cut on her cheek) and the other when he pushed her against a cupboard (cutting her lip). Lenina has had enough of Bernard’s bad behaviour and is worried about the effect it is having on John too.
Lenina feels that the marriage is over. She has now decided that she wants to transition to being a man and obtain a gender recognition certificate. She has recently become very close to an old friend from university called Henry.
Advise Lenina, who wishes to know:
1. Whether there is any ground on which her marriage to Bernard can be annulled?
2. Alternatively, whether she has any basis to divorce Bernard.
3. What financial and property orders the court may make on divorce and how the various factors in s.25 will be applied here. You should also advise Lenina on the approach of the court towards the pre-nuptial agreement.
4. What orders she could obtain to protect her and John from Bernard and to enable her to stay in the London house in the short term at least. Your answer should apply the criteria which would be considered by the court in the making of those orders.
5. Whether she could form a legal relationship with Henry, assuming that Lenina’s marriage is dissolved and she subsequently obtains a full gender recognition certificate.
LAW OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATION-
INSTRUCTIONS FOR LAW OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATION-
ANSWER EACH QUESTIONS DISTINCTIVELY MAKING REFERENCE
TO CASES AND ONLINE ARTICLES WHERE POSSIBLE. ALSO,
MAKE USE OF THE LAW STYLE OF REFERENCES WHICH IS THE
OSCOLA REFRENCE WHICH ENTAILS THE USE OF FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.
YOU MUST ANSWER BOTH QUESTIONS AND WORD COUNT IS 3000 WORDS.
Question 1 (40 marks)
For the purposes of this part of the assessment you are a junior lawyer advising a client named Daniel Smith who has been trading as a sole trader setting up and designing websites for some 10 years. Daniel has grown the business gradually, but now wishes to go into partnership with James Colburn, who also runs a web design business locally. The two think they could do better commercially working together rather than continuing in competition with one another.
Daniel has told you that one of the reasons James is keen to go into partnership with him is that he (James) has been unwell recently. Daniel has the following concerns:-
(a) James earned profits of only £12,000 last year, and although he is now back to working full-time, Daniel is concerned that he, Daniel, will continue to earn the bulk of the partnership income for some time;
(b) If James becomes unwell again, Daniel does not want to be responsible for supporting him indefinitely. If it becomes clear after a reasonable period that James is not going to return to work, Daniel wants to be able to take over the business and pay James off;
(c ) Daniel will be providing his extensive office equipment including expensive computers for use by the new firm.
What advice would you give Daniel in relation to clauses in the partnership agreement dealing with the above three concerns, and why?
What advice would you give Daniel about the new firm’s liabilities and his potential responsibility for them?
Question 2 (60 marks)
English law provides the directors of companies limited by shares with powers to manage the companies; what safeguards exist to protect the interests of the owners?
LAW OF EQUITY AND TRUST-
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR LAW OF EQUITY AND TRUST-
The mooting assignment is in two parts: oral and written. For the oral part, I would like you to imagine yourself as the appellant acting for Louise (which in this case would be me presenting what you would end up writing for me in front of the judge in the court of law) who is appealing the case from the lower court. Also, the point allocated to me to appeal is the second point which is:
(In 2010-2012 she followed advice of another person, whom she believed had knowledge of markets, and she considered investing in other companies before investing in FrackGas Ltd).
Therefore that would be your major focus but you can just make little or no reference to the first and third point.
So I would kindly expect you to write it in a way which I would be able to present it in front of a judge and it would be a total of 1000 words because the time allocated is five minute.
For the written part,
You will also be required to provide a written statement (not exceeding 600 words) of the arguments you presented orally in outline along with the relevant authorities (skeleton argument). These two elements together will count for 50% of the available marks for the module, more specifically the oral moot accounts for 20% of marks, the written skeleton argument accounts for 30% of marks. This would include how and where you got your research from and a skeleton argument of the case as a whole. you must be precise.
Also, the use of footnotes and bibliography which is the oscolar referencing must be used in all of the coursework’s. Thank you.
ASSESSMENT QUESTION
Alan died in 2006. He had a wife, Louise, and two children from his previous marriage, Charlotte and Stephen. In his will, Alan settled £200,000 on trust for Charlotte and Stephen in equal shares, asking Louise to manage the trust fund for the benefit of Charlotte and Stephen. Despite having no knowledge about managing finances or investments, Louise agreed to manage the trust fund out of respect for Alan’s will. For the first four years (2006-2010), Louise kept the money in a current account with HSBC. She was very concerned about not making a bad investment and it did not occur to her to seek anyone’s advice. She was also a very busy woman, engrossed in her own interior design business, and did not have the time to learn about how to invest. The interest accruing on that account was paid at the Bank of England base rate of 0.5%, which meant that the profit the fund made was significantly below any profit it would have made if the money had been invested. If the fund had been invested, in all likelihood, it would have been worth £240,000 by December 2010. Instead, the fund went up to £204,000 (in December 2010).
In January 2011 Louise heard from her friend, Derek, that investing in shares in a gas exploration company FrackGas Ltd could be very profitable. Derek appeared to Louise to have knowledge about investments but she actually did not know, nor endeavoured to find out, whether he had any professional qualifications in investing. Louise was conscious that any investments carried a degree of risk, so she took interest in a number of companies and investment markets to make sure that FrackGas Ltd was not more risky than, and at least as profitable as, other investments. Finally, she decided to follow Derek’s advice and invested the entire trust fund of £204,000 in these shares. In 2013 the shares dropped down in value to £170,000.
Charlotte and Stephen have discovered the investments Louise made. They sued her for breach of duty of care in exercising the trustee’s power to invest under Trustee Act 2000. Judge Hobbes held that Louise breached the duty of care when investing and was liable to restore to the trust fund the amount of £106,000. This loss consisted of:
(i) £36,000, which was the amount the trust fund would have increased by had it been invested in 2006-2010;
(ii) £70,000 which was the amount that the trust fund lost through the investment in FrackGas Ltd in 2011-2013.
Louise now appeals, arguing that she breached no duty of care because
(i) In 2005-2009 she was a very busy person and did not have time to learn about investing; any reasonable person in her position would have also kept the money in a current account rather than seek to invest recklessly; she also argued she did not know she needed to seek anyone’s advice in deciding whether or not to invest;
(ii) In 2010-2012 she followed advice of another person, whom she believed had knowledge of markets, and she considered investing in other companies before investing in FrackGas Ltd.
(iii) Louise also argued that even if she were to be found to have breached a duty of care as a trustee in both (i) and (ii), she could only be held liable for the loss suffered in 2006-2010, i.e. £36,000, and not the loss suffered in 2011-13 because any investments in shares made in those years turned out to be more likely to bring loss than profit so whatever investment she would have made in those years would have brought loss to the trust fund. In essence, the most she could be held liable for is £36,000 and not £106,000
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]
