Module Title

Equity and Trusts

CRN

40433

Level

6

Module Leader/

Assessment set by

Assessment title

Case Study

Submission deadline/

Assessment date and time

21^st November 2017 at 4pm

Mode of

submission

You should submit your assessment via Turnitin

Assessed intended learning outcomes

On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:

Knowledge and Understanding

1.Critically review encounters with principles of equity and trusts in earlier modules, and, in particular, to reflect upon trusts of land and their relationship to classical rules of equity and trusts.

2.Demonstrate  a detailed knowledge and understanding of the law of Equity and Trusts

3.Use and apply  appropriately  the complex terminology of the subject in a range of contexts

Transferable/Key Skills and other Attributes

1.Develop further competence in the use of a range of legal (and sometimes non-legal) research sources, in both paper and electronic format.

2.Develop further independent learning skills.

3.Marshal facts and analyse legal concepts across traditional subject boundaries

Weighting within module

This assessment is worth 40% of the overall module mark.

Task details and instructions

The student must choose one of the cases below and must write a case study of this. You should note that a case study is not simply a treatment of the facts and the decision in the case chosen. The candidate must show an awareness of the context of the case. Thus the case study should outline and analyse the state of the law prior to the case. This should include all policy reasons and values underlying the particular area of the law. Then the study should identify what if any deficiencies there were in this area of law which gave rise to this case. The case should be viewed as an attempt to resolve a particular problem and the candidate must assess how successful this solution was. The latter might involve a treatment of how the case has been dealt with in later decisions.  The student should look to identify any remaining difficulties and offer some suggestions on how they might be resolved by looking at academic suggestions.

You are advised to read case studies in any relevant journal to appreciate the range of styles used in such an undertaking.

A sample of some previous case studies completed by students will be added to the Blackboard site.

If you conduct a case study of a case that is not on this list then you receive a mark of 0.

Challinor v Juliet Bellis & Co [2013] EWHC 620 (Ch)

Re Denley’s DT [1969] 1 Ch 373

Re Grant WT [1980] 1 WLR 360

Re Astor [1952] 1 All ER 1067

Rawstron v Freud [2014] EWHC 2577 (Ch)

Re Thompson [1934] Ch 342

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Broadway Cottages Trust [1955] Ch 20

Blackwell v Blackwell [1929]  AC 318

Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159

King v Dubrey and others [2015] EWCA Civ 581

In re Niyazi’s Will Trusts [1978] 1 WLR 910

Her Majesty’s Attorney General et al v The Charity Commission, Upper  Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (2012) WL 488349

Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust [1951] AC 29

Word count/duration (if applicable)

Your assessment should be 2500 words

Marking criteria/scheme

Marks for your assessment will be allocated based on….

40-49

Discussions relating to the review of the desirability of the decision in the case are primarily basic and descriptive.  The discussion relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the decision are descriptive and the evaluation is limited.  Limited use of secondary academic material and other cases is evident in the discussion.  Recommendations relating to how this area of law can be clarified or improved are limited. In general, whilst the submission demonstrates an understanding of the basic concepts, it is largely descriptive.

50-59

Discussions relating to the review of the desirability of the decision demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the main concepts.  The discussion relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the decision demonstrate an acceptable knowledge and although there is an attempt to develop the analytical aspects of this the student has failed to develop the discussion in a structured manner.  The use of secondary academic material and other cases is primarily descriptive and illustrative but raises some interesting points. Recommendations relating to how this area of law can be clarified or improved are acceptable but with limited justification in terms of the impact upon the law in this area.  In general the submission demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the key points but the analytical and evaluative aspects of the submission lack focus.

 60-69

Discussions relating to the review of the desirability of the decision demonstrate a good understanding of the main concepts. The discussion relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the decision demonstrate a good knowledge of the key points and there is constructive use of secondary materials and other cases. Recommendations relating to how this area of law can be clarified or improved include some good points and makes reference to the aims, and objectives which underpin this area of law.  In general, whilst more evaluation of material could have been provided, the submission demonstrates a good understanding of the subject with relevant secondary materials.

70 +

Discussions relating to the review of the desirability of  the decision demonstrate a very good understanding of the main concepts.  Discussion relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the decision demonstrate a very good knowledge of the key points and there is constructive use of secondary materials and other cases. Recommendations relating to how this area of law can be clarified or improved include some good commentary and makes reference to the aims, and objectives which underpin this area of law.  In general, the submission demonstrates a detailed and good understanding of the subject with relevant secondary materials being used to structure discussions.

Penalties for exceeding word count/duration

You will incur a penalty if you submit an assessment which exceeds the word count

Feedback arrangements

You can expect to receive feedback by 12^th December 2017.

Support arrangements

You can obtain support for this assessment during seminars, lectures, a specific session on case studies, and samples of previous work on blackboard. 

askUS

The University offers a range of support services for students through askUS.

Academic Misconduct

The University takes all forms of academic misconduct seriously.  This includes plagiarism, asking someone else to write your assessment for you or taking notes into an exam. You can find out how to avoid academic misconduct here.

Assessment Information

If you have any questions about assessment rules, you can find out more here.

Personal Mitigating Circumstances

If personal mitigating circumstances may have affected your ability to complete this assessment, you can find more information about personal mitigating circumstances procedure here.

Personal Tutor/Student Progression Assistant

If you have any concerns about your studies, contact your Personal Tutor or your Student Progression Assistant.

Reassessment

If you fail your assessment, and are eligible for reassessment, you will conduct and submit another case study which must be a different case which will be submitted sometime in August 2018.

Your assessment is not  eligible for in year retrieval.