University of London — LLB

🏢 Company Law
MCQ Practice

568 practice questions · 57 topics · Study on WhatsApp

✨ Free 3-day trial · PKR 1,999/month after · No card needed

🎓 Built by UoL LLB graduates · 🤖 Powered by AI + exam intelligence from past papers

Start Practising on WhatsApp

No sign-up · No download · Free to start

Scan to start
on WhatsApp

Exam intelligence

All topics in Company Law

Every topic in the knowledge graph — mapped from the official syllabus and textbook.

Company Law
Introduction to Company Law
Companies Act 2006
Forms of Business Organisation
Companies Act 2006 s.763
Companies Act 1985 s.459
Companies Act 2006 s.3(4)
Companies Act 1985 s.379A
Companies Act 2006 s.10
Twelfth EC Company Law Directive (89/667)
2005 White Paper
Partnership Act 1890
The Nature of Legal Personality
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming [1961] AC 12
Shaker v Al-Bedrawi [2003] 2 WLR 922
Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22
Giles v Rhind [2003] 2 WLR 237
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co [1925] AC 619
Barings plc (In Liquidation) v Coopers & Lybrand (No 4) [2002] 2 BCLC 364
Lifting the Veil of Incorporation
Re Todd Ltd [1990] BCLC 454
R v K [2005] The Times, 15 March 2005
Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832
Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd (2007) 2 All ER (Comm) 813
D.H.N. Ltd v Tower Hamlets [1976] 1 WLR 852
National Dock Labour Board v Pinn & Wheeler Ltd [1989] BCLC 647
Noel v Poland [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 30
Daido Asia Japan Co Ltd v Rothen [2002] BCC 589
Ratiu v Conway (2006) 1 All ER 571
Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1992] BCC 638
Insolvency Act 1986 s.214
Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988
Insolvency Act 1986 ss.213-215
Companies Act 2006 s.399
Insolvency Act 1986 s.213
Companies Act 2006 s.993
Companies Act 2006 s.409
Companies Act 2006 s.1159(2)
Company Formation, Promoters and Pre-incorporation Contracts
Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878) 3 App Cas 1218
Twycross v Grant (1876–77) LR 2 CPD 469
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
Re Cape Breton Co (1885) 29 Ch D 795
Lagunas Nitrate Co v Lagunas Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch 392
Re Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co, Howard v Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co (1888) 38 Ch D 156
Re Northumberland Avenue Hotel Co Ltd (1886) 33 Ch D 16
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd (Case C-167/01) [2003] ECR I–10155, ECJ
Gluckstein v Barnes [1900] AC 240
Braymist Ltd v Wise Finance Co Ltd [2002] 1 BCLC 415
EC Treaty Articles 2
Companies Act 2006 s.51(1)
14th EC Company Law Harmonisation Directive
European Communities Act 1972 s.9(2)
Companies Act 1985 s.36C
First European Community Directive on Company Law
Companies Act 2006 s.51
EC Treaty Articles 48

Live preview

See what you'll practice

Real questions from our database — the exact format you'll get on WhatsApp.

SaveMeTutor

● online

Partnership Act 1890

Question 1

A group of investors pools funds to buy shares in a company, agreeing to split dividends. Is this a partnership under the Partnership Act 1890?

11:31 ✓✓

A Yes, because they share profits derived from a joint investment.

B No, because holding shares jointly does not constitute carrying on a business in common. ✓

C Yes, because any profit-sharing arrangement between more than two people forms a partnership.

11:31 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Mere co-ownership of investments does not amount to a business (Re Sirpur Paper Mills [1915]). Option A confuses profit-sharing with business activity. Option C is overly broad and incorrect.

11:31 ✓✓

Lagunas Nitrate Co v Lagunas Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch 392

Question 2

What duty did the promoters owe in Lagunas Nitrate Co v Lagunas Syndicate?

11:31 ✓✓

A To ensure the company was profitable for investors.

B To disclose any personal interest in transactions with the company. ✓

C To register all pre-incorporation contracts with the Registrar.

11:31 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
The case held promoters must disclose personal interests. Option A is not a fiduciary duty; option C is not required by law.

11:31 ✓✓

Companies Act 2006 s.1159(2)

Question 3

Under Companies Act 2006 s.1159(2), which of the following most accurately defines when a company is a subsidiary?

11:31 ✓✓

A A company is a subsidiary if the parent holds more than 50% of its shares, regardless of voting rights.

B A company is a subsidiary if the parent has the right to appoint or remove a majority of its board of directors. ✓

C A company is a subsidiary only if it is economically dependent on the parent company.

11:31 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Section 1159(2)(b) CA 2006 states a subsidiary relationship arises where a company has the power to appoint or remove a majority of the board. Shareholding alone is not determinative unless it confers voting control.

11:31 ✓✓

Pricing

Simple, transparent pricing

Try everything free for 3 days. No credit card needed to start.

Free Trial 3 Days

PKR 0 / 3 days

Full access — try everything before you commit.

✓ Unlimited questions
✓ All 22 subjects
✓ Instant explanations with case citations
✓ Spaced repetition (SM-2)
✓ Score tracking + weak-spot detection
✓ Exam mode with timed tests

Start Free Trial

No sign-up · No credit card · Instant access

Monthly Best Value

PKR 1,999 / month

Less than a single tutoring session. Cancel anytime.

✓ Everything in Free Trial
✓ Unlimited questions forever
✓ 70,000+ exam-quality MCQs
✓ Questions from real past papers
✓ AI-powered study plans
✓ Priority support

Start Free, Pay Later

Pay only after your 3-day trial ends

🏢 Company Law
MCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Company Law

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Company Law?

🏢 Company LawMCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Company Law

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Company Law?

🏢 Company Law
MCQ Practice