8/13/2019 Examiner's Report f4 Dec 2008
1/3
PAPER F4, CORPORATE AND BUSINESS LAW
PAPER F4: JUNE 2008: 46%
PAPER F4: DECEMBER 2008: 39%
My report on the paper will be simple and focus on one
fundamental issue, as I
did at the recent teachers conference in Manchester.
The feedback article for the June 2008 sessions includes the
following
comment:
The pass rate increased from the December 2007 session, but this
was
probably because the company law questions were deliberately
very general,
and did not require any in depth knowledge of the Companies Act
2006 .
Candidates for future exams must be fully aware of the content
of the new
act.
Those of you who were either at the teachers conference, or who
have read
my report for the December 2008 paper, will already be aware
that this
warning was simply ignored. As I stated in my report: The
single, most
damaging factor for the performance of candidates was the almost
total lack of
awareness of the existence let alone the detailed provisions of
the
Companies Act 2006 . Very few candidates appeared to be aware of
the
provisions, but perhaps of more concern was that a considerable
number
8/13/2019 Examiner's Report f4 Dec 2008
2/3
appeared not even to be aware of the existence of the 2006 Act,
repeatedly
referring to the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 .
In both papers, Questions 4, 5 and 6 focused on the provisions
of the 2006 Act
in areas where the law had changed significantly. It should go
without saying
that candidates cannot get marks where they are unaware of the
law
regulating the question asked. This is particularly the case
where the law has
actually changed although the terms used appear not to have
changed
significantly.
Question 6 can be taken as the worst example of this failure.
What was
required was an explanation of the duty of directors to promote
the success of
the company, and to whom such a duty is owed. The Companies Act
2006
introduced major changes with regard to codification of
directors duties; as
the examiner, I assumed evidently wrongly that teachers, and
therefore
candidates, would not only be aware of the changes but would
focus on them
as being likely to be examined. Question 6 required specific
reference to
section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 but only a small minority
of
candidates appeared to be aware of that Act, let alone the
detail of section
172. As one marker commented, I marked 20 centres. Candidates
from only
one centre produced satisfactory or good answers to this
question; they were
clearly up-to-speed on the Companies Act 2006 and exhibited a
sound
knowledge and understanding of directors duties specifically,
the duty to
promote the success of the company.
The others either used the out-of-date 1985 Act, or relied on a
general
description of directors duties.
