Coursework Assignment Brief

Semester: C15-2015

Module Code: PAA103

Module Title: Corporate & Business Law

Programme BA Accounting & Finance

Level: Level 4

Awarding Body: University of Plymouth

Module Leader Jose Kattady

Format: Report

Presentation: No

Any special requirements:

All work should be submitted on the Student Portal along with an acceptable Turnitin Report

Word Limit: 2,000 words

Deadline date for submission:

10 August,2015 (Monday)

Percentage of marks awarded for module:

30%

Assessment criteria Explanatory comments Maximum marks for each section

Content, style, relevance, originality

Understanding of the functions and aims of tribunals

30%

Constructive critical analysis, introduction, conclusion

Demonstration of a clear understanding of how a tribunal works in practice and how it achieves the purposes for which it was established. Explain the issues surrounding use of precedent by tribunals.

60%

Format, referencing, bibliography

Clear and correctly calculated presentation of data; Harvard style referencing of sources

10%

As you are learning business and employment law, it is necessary to understand the

legal procedures of Tribunals and the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the UK

Assignment Task

Your assignment is to produce a report on the ways in which tribunals and ADR

function within English legal system.

Required

1

a. Visit a tribunal which permits public access and watch the legal proceedings for a day.

You should demonstrate your attendance by discussing the proceedings of the

employment tribunal. Summarise the case you observed and the decisions by the

tribunal. (40% marks)

b. Identify and narrate the appeal procedures of tribunals in the UK. (10% marks)

Note: Evidence for attending the tribunal need be placed in the appendix.

2

Through a wider research, evaluate the purpose of Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) and, with particular reference to the services provided by Acas, assess to what

extent it is a successful means of resolving disputes outside the formal judicial process.

(40% marks)

3. Your report should be professionally presented with correct Harvard style referencing

(10% marks)

Total 100% Marks

Indicative Grade

UK% marks Characteristics.

Distinction 70%+ Very high standard of critical analysis using appropriate conceptual frameworks.

Excellent understanding and exposition of relevant issues.

Clearly structured and logically developed arguments.

Good awareness of nuances and complexities.

Substantial evidence of well-executed independent research.

Excellent evaluation and synthesis of source material.

Relevant data and examples, all properly referenced.Merit 69-60% High standard of critical analysis using appropriate

conceptual frameworks.

Clear awareness and exposition of relevant issues.

Clearly structured and logically developed argument.

Awareness of nuances and complexities.

Evidence of independent research.

Good evaluation and synthesis of source material.

Relevant data and examples, all properly referenced.Pass 59-50% Uses appropriate conceptual frameworks.

Attempts analysis but includes some errors and /or omissions.

Shows awareness of issues but no more than to be expected room attendance at classes.

Arguments reasonably clear but underdeveloped.

Insufficient evidence of independent research.

Insufficient evaluation of source material.

Some good use of relevant data and examples but incompletely referenced.

Pass 49-40% An understanding of appropriate conceptual frameworks.

Answer too descriptive and or any attempt at analysis is

superficial containing errors and omission.

Shows limited awareness of issues but also some confusion.

Arguments not particularly clear.

Limited evidence of independent research and reliance on a superficial repeat of class notes.

Relatively superficial use of relevant data sources and examples and poorly referenced.

PASS MARK=40%E 39-30% Weak understanding of appropriate conceptual

frameworks. Weak analysis and several errors and omissions.

Establishes a few relevant points but superficial and confused exposition of issues.

No evidence of independent research and poor understanding of class notes or no use of relevant data, sources and examples and no references.