Monday, August 5, 2019

Reflection on Assessment Feedback

Reflection on Assessment Feedback Examine and critically reflect upon the feedback given on your first assignment and draft a response to the feedback that demonstrates improvement on your work. In this feedback, Ill be analysing and examining ways I could improve my first assignment. This is the overall feedback I received for my work. You have discussed the principle of separate legal personality and provided examples from cases and academic opinions, but you have not provided your own analysis and opinion about the reform. Various spelling errors also detracts the flow of the essay. In order to improve, you need to summarise the position and form your analysis based on the research that you have made, so that you can critically evaluate the question that you are asked. Having corresponded this feedback this that of my assignment, I have noticed and indicated that areas that these errors occurred and have carefully examined and analysed ways that I can improve that assignment. After the introduction, I went on to the body of the assignment, to discuss the main principles by which unfortunately, I made a repetition of what I previously stated in my introduction. With my next assignment, I will be sure to keep the introduction short and a subtle description of what I will be discussing, without going into a lot of detail as that will only lead to a repetition. Another key factor of my feedback was that, although I did very well to talk about the work with all the relevant articles and legal cases to back it up but unfortunately, I didnt provide enough of my own analysis to demonstrate that I understand the work and my knowledge about the topic. I could have gone into my depth about the Principles of Salomon and the importance of separate legal personality. [1]Lightman J in Acalos and Hutcheson plc v Watson [1995] 1 BCLC 218 well-thought-out that, the principle of separate legal personality must be upheld, except there was to be a precise statutory provision to say otherwise. He said,[2] outside these exceptions (the company) is entitled to organise and conduct its affairs in the expectation that the court will apply the principle of Salomon v A Salomon Co Ltd in the ordinary way. The essential perception of corporative nature, is something that is very much regarded. That is why if the Salomon decision was to be disregarded now, its presence plays a key influence and without it, there could be damaging effects on those individuals such as the shareholders, the creditors and the economy. Little modifications to the corporate model will be essential in entailing a vigilant deliberation for the inadvertent penalties, that it may cause in what is a considered a vastly multifaceted zone. Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd, is without a doubt a landmark case in company law, with the most important decision that was made by the courts, influencing the legal system. It is important that, the principle of Salomon to be sustained and to be engaged in the law, at least until some alternative yet effective methods of reform has been established. Until then, this will be the most effective way to go in helping with decision making, in case laws. [3]It cannot be precisely said when or in what case/situation the courts may decide that they will lift the corporate veil, and to seek whether to look aside from the separate legal personality of the company. In this case, it will be better if this situation of not incorporating the separate legal personality only applied to situations where the courts are sure that this doctrine will be used for unfitting resolutions. It is important that company directors become very vigilante and careful with how they control and manage their businesses, to avoid in future legal battles over their assets. Do not forget that the courts can be very resourceful to find ways and means of a defence to prevent the use of the separate legal personality of the cooperation, so that it can deal with any unlawful effort to use this as any means of an excuse. The corporate veil shouldnt be pierced if it is thought that the company may be using this as an opportunity to cover up their true purpose by using a veil as a means of avoiding any liability that may be to come. Demonstrated in the case of [4]Adams v Adams Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 which is about separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. The case additionally tended to long-standing issues under the English clash of laws in the matter of when a business would be inhabitant in a remote purview with the end goal that the English courts would perceive the international courts over the business. The decision made in [5]Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] UKHL 41 by the House of Lords and the historic choice in [6]Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 holds that, an immediate obligation might be owed in tort by a primary business to that of the person injured. The significant findings were that the secondary verdict was, Cape plc had presumed obligation for the health a nd safety of its employees and, those affiliates about asbestos. There are many factors from reflecting on my previous assignment along with my feedback, that will benefit me in my future assignments. I know that for my next assignment it is very essential that I apply more of my own opinion with backing articles and legal evidence to support my statements, rather than to state facts only. I also noticed that I made two spelling errors in my first assignment, that I was blindsided by. I have taken a vigilante note of this for my upcoming assignments, to make sure that I give myself enough time to read over my work, before handing in my assignments. Bibliography Books Bourne N, Bourne on company law (4th edn, Routledge-Cavendish 2010) 11 McLaughlin S, Unlocking company law (Routledge 2015) Wild C and Weinstein S, Smith Keenans company law (Pearson Education 2016) Websites Adams v cape industries plc: CA 2 Jan 1990, (Company, 13 July 2016) accessed 20 December 2016 Lubbe and others v cape Plc: CA 24 Aug 1999, (International, 6 July 2015) accessed 20 December 2016 BAILII, Chandler v cape Plc [2012] EWCA civ 525 (25 april 2012) (2012) accessed 20 December 2016 Cases Hutcheson plc v Watson [1995] 1 BCLC 218 Adams v Adams Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433 Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] UKHL 41 Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 [1] Nicholas Bourne, Bourne on company law (4th edn, Routledge-Cavendish 2010) 11 [2]  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   Nicholas Bourne, Bourne on company law (4th edn, Routledge-Cavendish 2010) 11 [3] Susan McLaughlin, Unlocking company law (Routledge 2015) [4] Adams v cape industries plc: CA 2 Jan 1990, (Company, 13 July 2016) accessed 20 December 2016 [5] Lubbe and others v cape Plc: CA 24 Aug 1999, (International, 6 July 2015) accessed 20 December 2016 [6] BAILII, Chandler v cape Plc [2012] EWCA civ 525 (25 april 2012) (2012) accessed 20 December 2016

No comments:

Post a Comment