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.