MLF1002 –Legal Case Study Assessment 3 (40%)

MLF1002 –Legal Case Study Assessment 3 (40%)

 

For this legal case study assessment, students are to apply the concepts taught in the law modules for the unit (Modules 9, 10 and 11) to a case study ‘Leighton Holdings: Building Bribery’ and answer four short answer questions. To best answer these questions, students may be required to research beyond the principles taught in the lectures and tutorials, and will be required to reference any external material that is used to form the substance of their answers.

 

In breaking down the marks that are available for this assessment, each question is worth 9 marks for a total of 36 marks for the content portion of the assignment. The remaining 4 marks are awarded for the use of referencing and the structure / presentation of assignment submissions. Students are to integrate a completed cover page (a template is provided on Moodle) into their assignment document and submit their assignment file in soft copy format to a turnitin link in Moodle. A hard copy version of your assignment is not required to be submitted to your lecturer or tutor.

 

Assessment Questions

Read the Leighton Holdings: Building Bribery case study and answer the following questions:

  1. What areas of law are pertinent to this case study? Describe what the identified areas of law cover, and explain how they are relevant to the issues raised in the case study. (500-600 words) (9 marks)

 

  1. Describe the regulatory responsibility of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Why was it suggested in the case study that ASIC was a regulatory body with weak foundations that failed to effectively handle the investigation into Leighton Holdings? (500-600 words) (9 marks)

 

  1. What is the business structure utilised by Leighton Holdings and what are its main features? How does the principle of separate legal existence apply to prevent the directors, employees and shareholders of Leighton Holdings from being personally liable to external stakeholders for the impropriety that has occurred here? (500-600 words) (9 marks)

 

  1. Using Leighton and other similar scandals, discuss the importance of tone at the top (the example set by leaders) and remuneration policy in contributing to, or preventing, corruption. (500-600 words) (9 marks)

 

 

 

Below is the marking rubric which will be used to grade your submission:

Question 1 – Relevant areas of law 0 – 2 marks

Very limited knowledge of topic with   significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.

Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

2 – 4 marks

Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.

Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

 

4 – 5 marks

Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

5 – 7 marks

Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.

Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

7 – 9 marks

Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer.

Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

    / 9
Question 2 – Regulatory responsibility of ASIC 0 – 2 marks

Very limited knowledge of topic with   significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.

Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

2 – 4 marks

Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.

Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

4 – 5 marks

Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

5 – 7 marks

Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.

Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

7 – 9 marks

Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer.

Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

    / 9
Question 3 – Business Structure and Separate Legal Existence 0 – 2 marks

Very limited knowledge of topic with   significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.

Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

2 – 4 marks

Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.

Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

 

4 – 5 marks

Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

5 – 7 marks

Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.

Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

7 – 9 marks

Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer.

Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

    / 9
Question 4 – Corporate Governance and Corruption 0 – 2 marks

Very limited knowledge of topic with   significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.

Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

2 – 4 marks

Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.

Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

4 – 5 marks

Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail. Demonstrates a reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

5 – 7 marks

Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.

Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

7 – 9 marks

Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer.

Consistently demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.

    / 9
Referencing/Structure/Presentation 0 marks

Cover page not included. Incoherent writing style with structure not appropriate to short answer format. Recurrent grammar, formatting and spelling mistakes. No in-text referencing or reference list provided.

1 mark

Cover page not included. Largely incoherent writing style with structure not appropriate to short answer format. Recurrent grammar, formatting and spelling mistakes. Either in-text referencing or reference list missing.

2 marks

Cover page may / may not have been included. Good writing style with structure appropriate to short answer format. Inconsistent grammar, formatting and spelling applied. In-text referencing and reference list incomplete or contains errors.

3 marks

Cover page included. Very good writing style with structure largely appropriate to short answer format. Grammar, formatting and spelling mostly accurate. In-text referencing and reference list provided that accords with Chicago referencing system.

4 marks

Cover page included. Fluent writing style with structure appropriate to short answer format. Grammar, formatting and spelling accurate (little to no mistakes).

In-text referencing and reference list provided that accords with Chicago referencing system.

    / 4

 

 

Referencing and appropriate acknowledgement of sources

Most often errors in referencing are incidental or clearly inadvertent. In the event of a level one incident of plagiarism occurring, a student may be contacted by the University and required to undertake further training or remedial work in relation to referencing. Where the lack of correct referencing appears to contravene the University policy on plagiarism, the student’s paper will be referred to the Unit Coordinator and dealt with according to University policy. This may amount to academic misconduct.

An important aspect of the University Plagiarism Policy is recognition that not all plagiarism incidents are intentional or involves cheating. If students are not learning as expected, they will be made aware of their difficulties and helped to improve. Those who deliberately choose to cheat by way of plagiarism, however, will be identified and dealt with accordingly.

Students are strongly advised to understand their responsibilities in relation to correct referencing and should consult the unit outline and the referencing information in the Learning Hub section of the Moodle site.

IMPORTANT: As a part of the plagiarism monitoring process for this assessment, investigations are made into whether students have used contract cheating websites such as Chegg or Course Hero. The use of these websites in connection with this and the other assessments for the unit is strictly prohibited and the university has an account with these platforms to enable them to view postings of any assessment questions and identify which students have posted them. Any aspect of the student’s submitted work that matches an answer to any of the assessment questions that appear on these websites (as verified by the similarity report for the submission) will result in an automatic fail for this piece of assessment.

Format of assignments

Assignments cannot be handwritten and must comply with the following format requirements below.

Document type: Word or pdf (pdf preferred).

Font: Arial or similar font – no smaller than 12 point in size.

Pages: Numbered in top or bottom margin.

Spacing: Appropriate line spacing and paragraph spacing.

Margins: At least 2.5 cm top, left, right & bottom.

Labelling of assignment file: Should include student’s Curtin ID number, their first and last names, and the title of the assignment (BLAW1002 Legal Case Study).

Presentation

A well-presented assessment will consider and meet the following criteria:

  • Cover sheet (located on Moodle under the ‘Assessment’ tab) must be completed and integrated into your assignment document (The system will only allow you to submit one file so you won’t be able to submit your cover page and assignment document separately).
  • Appropriate sentence structure.
  • Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation.
  • Paragraph size and breaks appropriate.
  • Consistent format.
  • Appropriate use of headings and sub-headings.
  • Within acceptable word limit.
  • Appropriate referencing and acknowledgment of sources.

Word Limit

The total assignment should be a minimum of 2,000 words and not exceed 2,400 words.

Please provide a word count on your cover sheet. A penalty of 10% will be imposed on assignments that exceed the word limit. The assignment will not be assessed if it exceeds 2,600 words and will result in a ZERO mark.

The word count does not include the following:

  • cover sheet;
  • in-text referencing;
  • referencing list; and
  • headings or sub-headings.

 

Submission of Assignment Document

Please read the submission process carefully.

All assignments must be submitted by their due dates as mentioned in the assessment guide. Students are required to submit their assignment to Moodle through a link provided in the Assessment’ folder titled ‘Assessment 3 Submission Point’. The assignment will automatically be submitted to the plagiarism detection program, Turnitin.