The coursework assessments details can be accessed here.
Remember, you need to answer ONLY ONE QUESTION, and can choose either. There is a 3,500 word limit for each.
The electronic submission deadline is TO BE ADVISED, and the Canvas submission box will be set up in due course.
Please note, that the usual 3 week turnaround for marks will not apply to this submission, as this is not formative assessment, but rather, this is the end of module assessment.
In the case of Attorney General of the Virgin Islands v Global Water Associates Ltd (British Virgin Islands)  UKPC 18, 2020 WL 03962287 (the GWA case), the court had to consider the question of remoteness of damage in contract law, and look closely at the common law rules on remoteness established by past case law.
Analysing the judgement in the GWA case, critically consider how the court follows and applies past precedent cases to reach its decision on the facts of the case before it.
In terms of the development of the law around employment status, compare and contrast the decisions and the judicial reasoning in the two recent cases of:
The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v The Central Arbitration Committee v Roofoods Ltd t/a Deliveroo –  EWCA Civ 952, 2021 WL 02581409
Stuart Delivery Ltd v Warren Augustine –  EWCA Civ 1514, 2021 WL 04847307
Criteria for Coursework Assessment
90 – 100% Thorough and authoritative execution of the brief. Containing evidence
of significant independent research, reflective, perceptive, well-
structured, showing significant originality in ideas or argument, aptly
focussed and very well written, in appropriate register; few areas for
80 – 89% Thorough execution of the brief, well-structured, clearly argued, signs of
originality and/or independent critical analytical ability. Supported by
independent research, materials well utilized; well-focussed and very
70 – 79% Good execution of the brief; well-focussed, knowledgeable, well-written,
strong evidence of reading beyond the basic texts and displays mastery
of the subject matter.
60 – 69% Well-structured and well-focussed answer with strong evidence of
reading beyond the basic texts. Well-written with few linguistic errors,
thorough and comprehensive in approach. Displays a good knowledge
of the subject matter and an ability to discuss theories and concepts.
50 – 59% Competently structured answer, reasonably well-focussed and
comprehensive but tending to be descriptive in approach. Limited
evidence of reading beyond the basic texts. Reasonably well-written,
perhaps some minor errors in spelling, register grammar or syntax.
40 – 49% Relies largely upon lecture materials and basic texts. Descriptive in
approach, limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter
displayed; partial and/or containing significant errors and/or
irrelevancies; poorly structured. Perhaps some inaccuracies in English
which occasionally affect comprehension of ideas.
30 – 39% Inadequate execution of the brief. Highly partial and/or containing
serious errors; contents partly or substantially irrelevant. Poorly
structured. Displays little knowledge of the subject matter. Perhaps
some inaccuracies in English which affect comprehension of ideas.
0 – 29% Seriously inadequate execution of the brief. Failure to focus upon the
question. Seriously short or even devoid of theoretical under-pinning.
Large sections irrelevant. Evidence of potential plagiarism. Perhaps
some serious weaknesses in use of English which affect the
communication of ideas.