Dispute Resolution in Tort
Module Title: Dispute Resolution in Tort Module Code: 77-506226 Level: 5 Reassessment Task: Portfolio (100% weighting)
INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES:
Your reassessment for this module will be a portfolio comprising of the following tasks:
▪ Task 1: Comparative Review (Indicative word count 1,500 words) Compare and contrast the relative efficacy and/or fairness of tort law principles across two or more contexts of your choosing.
For example, you could explore: the development of tort law principles over time; how tort law principles differ between jurisdictions; the application of tort law within different industries; the application of existing tort law principles to new technologies or working practices; or the application of tort law to private organisations vs public bodies.
▪ Task 2: Case Study – Part A (Indicative word count 2,000 words) With reference to the case study provided, and to legal authority, critically evaluate the potential tortious liability arising from the circumstances described.
Note that this case study is NOT the same as the case study from the main sit. You can find the reassessment case study on the Reassessment tab of the module Blackboard site.
▪ Task 3: Case Study – Part B (Indicative word count 1,000 words) With reference to the case study provided, and to legal authority including the Civil Procedure Rules, advise the claimant(s) on the process of litigating through the court system.
Your advice should include: a) a brief explanation of each of the most important stages of the litigation process, noting points of particular significance; b) an evaluation of the merits of one or more interim applications that may be appropriate in this case; and c) any key evidential issues that might arise, together with an evaluation of their potential impact. Please note that this case study is NOT the same as the case study from the main sit. You can find the reassessment case study on the Reassessment tab of the module Blackboard site. Instructions continue on the next page
Page 2 of 8
▪ Task 4: Reflection (Indicative word count 500 words) Using a suitable academic model, reflect on your learning experience on this module and identify actions that you can take to support your future academic development.
Instructions continue on the next page
Page 3 of 8
Format
1. Your work must be submitted using a Microsoft Word file format (doc or docx).
2. Filenames should use only letters, numbers, hyphens and underscores, and should be less than 72 characters in length.
3. Your work MUST NOT be password protected.
4. Your work must be double-spaced.
6.
Footnote referencing using only the OSCOLA referencing method MUST be used for this assessment task; the Harvard or APA referencing systems are NOT permitted.
7.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is successfully submitted. Always check your email receipt and that your work is viewable via the submission point following each submission.
8.
The word limit for this overall assessment is 5,000
words.
To avoid confusion, the 5,000-
word limit does not apply to each task
–
it is 5,000 words overall. You may use that word limit how you wish, but please be aware of the indicative word counts above which are intended to guide you. Please note that if your work exceeds the 5,000 word limit, it will be marked up to the word limit only.
9.
The following WILL NOT
be included in your word
count:
•
Materials listed in your bibliography, table of cases, table of statutes, or footnotes. Only references should be placed in your footnotes (case citations, statutes, journal articles etc). Any material other than the above which is contained in your footnotes is poor academic practice for the purposes of this assessment and will be disregarded by the marker. • The title of the assessment.
10.
The following WILL
be included in your word count:
•
EVERYTHING
in your main text, from the first word you write to the last word. This includes: o case names o statutes and section numbers o quotations o other authority contained in the main text o headings (if used)
11.
The number of words you have used in the assessment must be stated at the end of the main body of your answer.
Submission Arrangements
1.
The date and time of the submission of your work for this assessment can be found on Blackboard.
2.
For this assessment, you must submit an electronic copy of your completed work by the deadline. Please note the following:
Page 4 of 8
• Your work must be submitted via Blackboard – please refer to the Module Blackboard site for further details on how to upload your work.
• If you have submitted the wrong work, or need to submit an updated version of your work, Blackboard allows this to be done, but only your final (pre-deadline) submission will be marked. • Work sent by fax or by email will not be accepted.
• You must retain an electronic copy of your work. Failure to produce a copy on request will result in a mark of zero for the assessment task.
3. Submission means that a validly formatted electronic copy, in MS Word format, has been submitted in the correct method via Blackboard, by the deadline set. Failure to do so will result in a mark of zero being awarded.
5. By submitting your work, you certify that it is your own work, and that the work of other people is duly referenced and acknowledged in accordance with the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy. Please note that: • You are required to familiarise yourself with the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy (go to MyHallam, then ‘Rules and Regulations’, then ‘Conduct and Discipline’). Academic misconduct can have serious repercussions for your academic (and later, professional) career. Please note that all students’ work will be subjected to plagiarism checks using text matching software.
• Advice on referencing can be found on the module Blackboard site under the Assessment content area.
Assessment guidance continues on next page
Page 5 of 8
Assessment Criteria % Grade 0 – 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Significant Fail (Highly insufficient) Marginal Fail (Insufficient) Third (Sufficient) Lower Second (Good) Upper Second (Very good) First (Excellent) Task 1: Comparative Review No relevant legal concepts are examined and/or there is no attempt to compare such concepts or their application in different contexts. Some legal concepts are described, but any comparative/ evaluative content is limited and/or superficial. Legal content and/or its application is significantly lacking in depth, breadth and/or accuracy. Some legal concepts are examined with relevant supporting authority, and some sensible points of comparison are made across two or more contexts. Analysis and/or conclusions may contain inaccuracies and/or the piece may lack relevant focus.
Good examination of legal concepts with relevant supporting authority, which is used to conduct a sufficiently comprehensive comparative review across two or more contexts. The review may benefit from greater depth of analysis and/or a more persuasive argument. Very good and detailed examination of legal concepts with relevant supporting authority, which is embedded within a persuasive argument relating to their application across two or more contexts.
Excellent and detailed examination of relevant legal concepts with supporting authority, which is embedded within a critical, persuasive and well-crafted argument relating to their application across two or more contexts. Work demonstrates creativity and/or originality, and appropriate wider reading is evident.
Task 2: Case Study – Part A
No relevant legal issues are identified and/or conclusions are wholly inaccurate.
Identification of some key legal issues, but analysis of the law is limited, lacks sufficient accuracy/authority, and/or is superficial.
Some key legal issues are correctly identified and explained, relevant legal authority is cited, and some accurate conclusions are reached.
The response however lacks sufficient coverage and/or contains some significant inaccuracies.
Good description and application of the key legal principles with relevant legal authority. Some accurate conclusions are reached.
There is reasonable coverage and the response shows a good level of understanding of the relevant law.
Very good and detailed evaluation of the key legal issues, with reference to appropriate legal authority. There is comprehensive coverage and the response shows a very good level of understanding of the relevant law.
Excellent and detailed evaluation of the key legal issues, with reference to a wide range of legal authority. The response is critical in its application of the law, cautious with its language, and is makes appropriate recommendations throughout. There are no more than trivial inaccuracies, and the work offers excellent insight into the problem.
Page 6 of 8
Task 3: Case Study – Part B
No relevant practical/ commercial issues are identified and/or conclusions are wholly inaccurate.
Identification of some key practical/ commercial issues, but analysis is superficial, lacks sufficient accuracy/authority, and/or is not sufficiently focused on the specific facts of this case study.
Some key practical/ commercial issues are correctly identified and explained, relevant authority is cited, and some accurate and specific conclusions are reached.
The response however lacks sufficient coverage and/or contains some significant inaccuracies.
Good description and application of the key practical/commercial issues with relevant authority. Some accurate and specific conclusions are reached.
There is reasonable coverage and the response shows a good level of understanding of litigation process and strategy.
Very good and detailed evaluation of the key practical/commercial issues, with reference to appropriate authority. There is comprehensive coverage and the response shows a very good level of understanding of litigation process and strategy. There is little/no purely descriptive/generic content.
Excellent and detailed evaluation of the key practical/ commercial issues, with reference to a wide range of authority. The response is critical in its application, cautious with its language, and is makes appropriate recommendations throughout. There are no more than trivial inaccuracies, and the work offers excellent insight into the problem. There is little/no purely descriptive/generic content.
Task 4: Reflection
No reflection on learning or evaluation of how knowledge and/or skills developed on the module might impact on future study and beyond.
No articulation of barriers or next steps.
Superficial and/or unstructured reflection on learning and evaluation of how knowledge and skills developed on the module might impact on future study and beyond.
Some awareness of barriers and next steps.
Reasonable reflection on learning – using a suitable academic model – and evaluation of how knowledge and skills developed on the module might impact on future study and beyond.
Clear awareness of barriers and articulation of next steps.
Good reflection on learning – using a suitable academic model – and evaluation of how knowledge and skills developed on the module might impact on future study and beyond. Good awareness of barriers and articulation of next steps, including SMART objectives.
Very good reflection on learning – using a suitable academic model – and evaluation of how knowledge and skills developed might impact on specific aspects of future study, career and/or personal development more broadly.
Very good understanding of barriers and good articulation of next steps, including SMART objectives.
Excellent reflection on learning – using a suitable academic model – and evaluation of how knowledge and skills developed might impact on specific aspects of future study, career and/or personal development more broadly. Excellent understanding of barriers and good articulation of next steps, including SMART objectives.
The reflection demonstrates that the student has a clear and effective strategy for maximising the value of their higher education studies.
Page 7 of 8
Tasks 1-4: Well-presented piece of work, demonstrating written and academic skills appropriate for the level of study
No references included.
Many errors in grammar and spelling, making it impossible to read.
References limited and/or inappropriate.
There is no attempt to follow OSCOLA referencing conventions.
Many errors in grammar and spelling, making it difficult to read.
References adequate but more and/or more relevant references needed.
There is an attempt to follow OSCOLA conventions, and key components are present for most references.
Reasonable grammar and spelling but several notable errors.
References are relevant and used throughout the piece.
OSCOLA referencing conventions are generally followed.
Good grammar and spelling with some errors.
References are relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, and provide strong authority for the piece. OSCOLA referencing conventions are followed, with few errors.
Very good grammar and spelling, with few errors.
References are relevant, comprehensive, provide strong authority for the piece, and demonstrate wider reading.
OSCOLA referencing conventions are followed, with minor/trivial errors only.
Excellent grammar and spelling, with few errors.
Page 8 of 8
Mode of Feedback: You will receive written or audio feedback on your submission.
In-Module Retrieval (IMR): IMR is not permitted on this module due to professional body regulations.
Extensions and Extenuating Circumstances If you are unable to meet the assessment deadline, you are advised to complete one of the following forms: either a RESD or a RRAA.
Be aware of the differences between a Request to Extend a Submission Deadline, and a Request to Repeat an Assessment Attempt (go to MyHallam, then ‘Rules and Regulations’, then ‘Illness and Difficult Circumstances’). Where possible we strongly advise you to speak to Student Services staff (see contact details below) in such circumstances, so that the correct support and advice can be given.
