LL2002: Law of Tort
|Assignment released to students on:||9/12/2020|
|Assignment due in on:||NOON on 26/1/2021|
|Assignment returned to students on:||Please refer to your Programme Moodle page for information on when you can expect to have this piece of work returned to you.|
Speaking about the duty of care in Michael and Others v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another  UKSC 2, Lord Toulson remarked that ‘[f]rom time to time the courts have looked for some universal formula or yardstick [for determining whether a duty of care is owed], but the quest has been elusive’ .
To what extent do you agree with Lord Toulson’s remark about the evolution of the duty of care?
The MAXIMUM word count for this piece is 2500 words. This does not include your bibliography or title. It does include your footnotes.
Please note that over-length work will be penalised in accordance with university regulations.
The upper limit may be a word limit in the case of written work or a time limit in the case of assessments such as oral work or presentations.
There is no penalty applied to under-length work but significantly under-length work is likely to be of poor quality and will be reflected in the mark. See your programme handbook for details.
Essays should be typed, 1.5 spaced, in Times New Roman or other legible font, size 12.
They must include a cover page which states your candidate number, word count and the assignment title. You must not include your name in the essay.
Sources of Assistance:
Ensure that you support your answer with appropriate primary and secondary sources and use appropriate referencing throughout.
For further help with your referencing and research please contact your subject librarian, Greg Leurs: email@example.com.
For advice on writing and key academic skills, please contact CeDAS. You can book a 1:1 tutorial or use their self-study resources on their website.
If you have previously received feedback recommending you develop your academic writing style, please contact CeDAS.
Your work will be marked according to the Department of Law and Criminology marking criteria, which are detailed in your Programme Handbook. They are replicated below.
These criteria are only indicative. Components indicated on the marking criteria and rubrics are not always equally weighted when calculating the final grade. Each module has different learning outcomes. As a result there may be a greater need in some assessments to demonstrate competency in certain areas over others. Therefore greater value will be given to those parts of your assessment when considering your overall mark.
We use ‘stepped marking’ in most of our assessments which means, unless a penalty has been applied to the mark, it will end in a 2, 5, or 8, signifying a ‘low/borderline’, ‘middle’, or ‘high’ grade in the relevant category.
If you are in any doubt about how your work will be marked, please contact the course convenor. Please note that we can only give you limited advice about ‘what to write’, but we can assist you with understanding the question and related concepts.
|Substantial originality in interpretation.||Coherent and exemplary structure of argument, very well focussed discussion, excellent synthesis of materials, exceptional use of authorities with clear innovations in form.||Outstanding evidence of in-depth, independent reading. Particularly wide range across academic literature and shows an outstanding ability to synthesise writers’ ideas and arguments.||Excellent presentation, flawless in-text and bibliographic referencing.||Incisive, fluent, no errors of spelling, punctuation, or grammar.|
|Deep, detailed and critical understanding and/or knowledge. Supported by relevant evidence. Originality in interpretation.||Coherent structure of argument, focussed discussion, excellent synthesis of materials, very good use of authorities, some innovations in form.||Significant evidence of in-depth, independent reading. Ranges across academic literature and shows ability to synthesise writers’ ideas and arguments.||Excellent presentation, accurate in-text and bibliographic referencing section.||Incisive, fluent, no significant errors of spelling, punctuation, or grammar.|
|Clear understanding and/or knowledge with no major gaps and consistent focus.||Coherent structure, focussed discussion, sufficient synthesis of materials and good use of authorities to enable solid interpretation||Substantial coverage of recommended materials, evidence of reading beyond lectures and standard texts.||Well presented, detailed referencing, well-formatted bibliography section.||Fluent style, few spelling, punctuation or grammar errors.|
|Satisfactory understanding and/or knowledge, suitable focus, lacking in originality.||Appropriate structure, but some inadequacies in linking ideas together. A solid but unremarkable use of authorities.||Limited further reading, adequate coverage of recommended texts.||Adequately presented, satisfactory referencing/bibliography section.||Simple style, some errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.|
|Limited, general understanding and/or knowledge, some omissions/inaccuracies, weak focus.||Simple but sufficient structure, formulaic argument based on lectures or texts and an insufficient use of authorities.||Little or no evidence of further reading, dependent on a few texts.||Weak presentation, with little referencing, inadequate bibliographic section detail.||Simple style, strewn with significant spelling, punctuation or grammar errors.|
|Limited and fragmentary understanding and/or knowledge, little evidence of learning, significant gaps/errors. Lacks focus.||Weak or indistinct structure, heavily dependent on direct teaching and limited reference to relevant authorities.||No evidence of further reading.||Poor presentation, little or no referencing, inadequate or absent bibliography section||Inadequate style, with significant errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.|
|Very limited knowledge and/or understanding, substantial gaps and inaccuracies, lacking in focus.||Inadequate structure, no sustained discussion, lack of logical argument with no relevant authorities used.||No evidence of further reading.||Poor presentation, few/no references, poorly-written bibliography section.||Inadequate style, with substantial errors of spelling, punctuation, or grammar.|
|Shows only the most limited and fragmentary knowledge of the subject with little or no understanding of essential principles.||Very weak structure, virtually devoid of discussion, no ascertainable argument with no relevant authorities used.||No evidence of either essential or further reading.||Weak presentation, no references, very weakly presented bibliography section.||Weak writing style, generally made up of woeful spelling, punctuation and grammar.|