RECENT ASSIGNMENT

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2019
Unit Code HA3021
Unit Title Corporations Law
Assessment Type Group Assignment
Assessment Title HA3021 Group Assignment
Purpose of the
assessment (with
ULO Mapping) The purpose of the Group Assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving two case problems by citing the relevant legal rules and cases and applying these to the facts of the case.
In this Group Assignments, students are required to:
- Demonstrate the legal principles for managing a company in particular the company’s relationship with others.
- Critically analyse the concept of corporate internal rules and management.
- Analyse the role and responsibility of directors and members in the
management of the company.
- Analyse the interaction between members’ rights, directors’ duties and corporate governance.
Weight 20% of the total assessment marks
Total Marks 20 (10% for the Group Report and 10% for the Presentation)
Word limit Group Written Report of maximum 2,000 words and a 10 minute presentation
Due Date Week 10
Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a
completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font
and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed
appropriately at the end in a reference list using the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC).

HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019

Page 2 of 10
Assignment Specifications
Purpose: The Group Assignment aims to provide students with an opportunity to work in a
collaborative environment in reporting on a recent Australian Corporations Law case relating to Directors Duties and Breaches of Directors Duties.
Students are to form groups, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 students per group.
The assignment consists of 2 parts: a 2,000 word written report and a 10 minute (maximum) in-class or video presentation.
Instructions: Please read and re-read carefully to avoid mistakes.
General instructions: Research on an Australian case (ideally not more than 10 years old since the decision by the Court) involving breach of company director’s/officer’s duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). You may also refer to the list of suggested cases attached to these instructions.
Group report (10%)
1. Write a report with the following headings and discussing the following:
a. Case introduction
This part must give the background of the case and cite the relevant facts that led to litigation. Please cite only the substantive facts of the case and not procedural facts.
b. Breaches of directors’ duties under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth)
In this part, discuss the facts that led to charges of breaches of directors’ duties being brought against the directors of the company.
You must then discuss the directors duties/responsibilities breached (ex, CA sections 181 or 588G) and explain why the duties were breached. You must refer to specific facts cited in the decision.
In the event that the court held that the directors did not breach their duties, explain why the court made this finding. You must refer to specific facts cited by the court.
c. Analysis of the Court’s decision
In this part, you must discuss and critically analyse the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Here, you may also refer to similar cases that have been decided at the High Court or Federal Court level and compare them with the case you have chosen.

Page 3 of 10
d. Relevance and impact of the decision
For this part, you are expected to discuss the relevance of the decision to the development of Australian corporations law or the impact of the decision on the operation of companies in Australia.
All the cases listed in the list of suggested cases are famous and seminal cases. To sufficiently discuss part d, you are expected to research the writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written about your chosen case.
2. As a minimum, the report must have the four headings listed above. Your report may have additional sections apart from the above (ex. Executive Summary, Conclusion, etc.) These, however, are not required.
3. The Group report must be submitted via SafeAssign on Blackboard.
4. The word count for the report is 2,000 word, with a 10% allowance under or over the 2,000 word limit. Please write the total word count for your report on the assignment cover sheet.
5. A minimum of six (6) scholarly and academic references must be cited. One of these sources must be the case that is the topic of the report. The references must be cited both in-text and in a reference list at the end of the report.
Group presentation (10%)
1. Present the report in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is more appropriate.
a. If in-class presentation, all members must present on the day. If video presentation, groups must show to the satisfaction of the lecturer that all group members made a reasonable contribution to the group work.
b. Non-compliance with this requirement may result in a failing mark for the entire group.
2. If your group is doing a video presentation, your video link must be uploaded to a publicly-viewable video sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox, Google drive) and the video link uploaded on Blackboard.
3. Whether in-class or video presentation, the minimum presentation length is 10 minutes and should not exceed 15 minutes.
IMPORTANT REMINDERS:
• You must email your lecturer your chosen case and list of group members by week 5. You must obtain approval from your lecturer of your case before starting work on it. Please note: failure to obtain lecturer approval will result in a failing mark for the entire group for the group assignment.
• All group report submissions must be de done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to be submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.
HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019

Page 4 of 10
· Please fill in the “Rubric Group Report” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) and attach as a cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.
· Each team member also must also submit to their lecturer a “Peer Evaluation of Individual Participation in Group Assignment” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) with their presentation/video.
· No submission of either the group report or video presentation link on Blackboard / SafeAssign is equivalent to non-submission, which will merit a mark of 0 (zero) for the whole group for this assessment.
· Groups of less than 3 and more than 5 people will receive an automatic penalty of 50% of the total assessment weight (10 marks).
· Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student
handbook).
· All reports are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC). A copy of the AGLC may be read online for free via this link:
https://law.unimelb.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0005/2877782/AGLC3.pdf

HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019

Page 5 of 10
Marking criteria
Marking criteria Weighting (%)
Group Report (see detailed marking rubric below) 10%
Presentation (see detailed marking rubric below) 10%
TOTAL Weight 20%

HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019

Page 6 of 10
Marking Rubric
Written Report
Total marks available: 10 Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Case introduction 2 marks 1.5 mark 1 mark Below 1 mark
Identifies material facts Completely Identifies most Identifies the Does not identify
involved in the case. identifies all of the relevant basic relevant relevant facts of case
relevant facts of facts of case facts of the case or cites irrelevant
Identifies the legal issues / case but misses other facts (i.e. procedural
legal question and relevant Issues correctly relevant facts facts)
law (i.e. specific provisions Correctly identified, but
of the Corporations Act identifies all may contain Issue are not Identifies incorrect or
2001 (Cth) relevant legal extraneous completely irrelevant issues.
issues and are information and identified.
2 marks stated in the form are not stated in Identifies incorrect or
of questions. the form of Legal rules and irrelevant legal rules
Correctly questions. case law not correctly and case law.
identifies relevant and appropriate legal rules and case law, and states them in the form of statements Legal rules and case law correctly identified, but may contain extraneous info and are not in the form of statements. identified.
Breaches of directors’ duties under the 2 marks 1.5 mark 1 mark Below 1 mark
Corporations Act 2001 Complete yet Incomplete yet Incomplete and Poor or no discussion
(Cth) succinct good discussion passable of the facts that led to
discussion of the of the facts that discussion of the charges of breaches
Discussion of the facts that facts that led to led to charges of facts that led to of directors’ duties
led to charges of breaches charges of breaches of charges of being brought against
of directors’ duties being breaches of directors’ duties breaches of the directors of the
brought against the directors’ duties being brought directors’ duties company.
directors of the company. being brought against the being brought
against the directors of the against the Does not identify the
Identifies the specific directors of the company. directors of the specific provisions of
provisions of the company. company. the Corporations Act
Corporations Act 2001 Identifies the 2001 (Cth) that were
(Cth) that were allegedly Identifies the specific Does not clearly allegedly breached
breached by the directors. specific provisions of the identify the by the directors.
provisions of the Corporations Act specific
Discussion of the directors Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that provisions of the Poor or no discussion
duties / responsibilities 2001 (Cth) that were allegedly Corporations Act of the directors duties
breached (ex, CA sections were allegedly breached by the 2001 (Cth) that / responsibilities
181 or 588G) and why the breached by the directors. were allegedly breached (ex, CA
duties were breached or directors. breached by the sections 181 or
not breached, with Incomplete yet directors. 588G) and why the
reference to specific facts Complete yet good discussion duties were breached
cited in the decision. succinct of the directors Incomplete and or not breached, with
discussion of the duties / passable reference to specific
2 marks directors duties / responsibilities discussion of the facts cited in the
responsibilities breached (ex, CA breached (ex, CA sections 181 directors duties / responsibilities decision.
HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019
Page 7 of 10
sections 181 or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision. or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision. breached (ex, CA sections 181 or 588G) and why the duties were breached or not breached, with reference to specific facts cited in the decision.
Analysis of the Court’s decision 2 marks 1.5 mark 1 mark Below 1 mark
Complete and Discussion of Discussion of the Discussion of the
Discussion and critical thorough the court/tribunal court/tribunal court/tribunal
analysis of the discussion of the decision and the decision and the decision and the
court/tribunal decision and court/tribunal reason for the reason for the reason for the
the reason for the decision decision and the decision in view decision in view decision in view of
in view of the Corporations reason for the of the of the the Corporations Act
Act 2001 (Cth) decision in view Corporations Act Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is
of the 2001 (Cth) is 2001 (Cth) is incomplete, lacks
2 marks Corporations Act either either incomplete important aspects
2001 (Cth) incomplete or lacks material or lacks important aspects and is and is substandard.
Shows a superior aspects but is merely passable. Shows a poor level of
level of critical otherwise good. critical analysis of the
analysis of the Shows a court’s decision.
court’s decision. Shows a high level of critical analysis of the court’s decision. passable level of critical analysis of the court’s decision.
Relevance and impact of the decision 2 marks 1.5 mark 1 mark Below 1 mark
Superior level of Good level of Acceptable Sub-standard
Discusses the relevance of discussion of the discussion of the level of level of discussion of
the decision to the relevance of the relevance of the discussion of the the relevance of the
development of Australian decision to the decision to the relevance of the decision to the
corporations law or the development of development of decision to the development of
impact of the decision on Australian Australian development of Australian
the operation of companies corporations law corporations law Australian corporations law or
in Australia. or the impact of or the impact of corporations law the impact of the
the decision on the decision on or the impact of decision on the
Shows research on the the operation of the operation of the decision on operation of
writings of other legal companies in companies in the operation of companies in
scholars, law professors, and noted legal Australia. Australia. companies in Australia. Australia.
practitioners who have Shows Shows good Shows little or no
written about the chosen substantial research on the Shows basic research on the
case. research on the writings of other research on the writings of other legal
2 marks writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners writings of other legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal scholars, law professors, and noted legal practitioners who have written
practitioners who who have practitioners who about the chosen
have written written about the have written case.
about the chosen chosen case. about the chosen
case. References case. Makes no reference to these writings.
References these writings. these writings. References these writings.
HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019

Page 8 of 10
Citation and referencing (including minimum number of references) and 2 marks
Correctly cites 1.5 mark
Has minimum of 1 mark
Does not have Below 1 mark
No referencing either
Presentation minimum of 6 6 references; or minimum of 6 in-text or in reference
references, in- has occasional references and list; or
2 marks text and in errors in contains errors in cites inappropriate
reference list. formatting of in- formatting of in- references; or all
Professional text citations text citations and references not cited
language. No grammatical, punctuation or and reference list reference list Many mistakes. in the correct format. Reflects no real
spelling errors. Some mistakes. Does not detract from understanding. Detracts from understanding. Sloppy. effort.
Deductions
Excess word count (1 mark for every 25 words over)
Under the word limit (1 mark for every 25 word under)
Lacks minimum of 6 references (1 mark for every missing reference)
Video Presentation
Total marks available: 10 Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Group member
participation and division of parts 1.5 marks All group 1 mark All group 0.75 mark Not all group Below 0.75 mark Not all group
members members members members presented
1.5 marks presented and presented but presented or and presentation
presentation is presentation is presentation is does not show real
equally divided not equally not equally effort.
among group divided among divided among
members; group members; group members;
presentation presentation but presentation
shows an shows a high shows average
excellent level of effort level of effort effort.
Depth of analysis and evidence of 4 marks 3.5 to 3.0 marks 2.5 to 2.0 marks Below 2 marks
understanding of the Displays in-depth Shows Does not show
issues presented and analysis and Displays strong acceptable level acceptable level of
critical thinking in evidence of analysis and of analysis and analysis and
answers strong understanding of understanding of understanding of the
understanding of the issues the issues. issues; merely reads
4 marks the issues presented and from prepared
presented and critical thinking in answers. critical thinking in answers. answers.
HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019
Page 9 of 10
Level of professionalism of presentation (including members in appropriate 3 marks High-level of 2 marks
Above average 1.5 marks Average level of Below 1.5 marks Below average level
business attire; and use professionalism level of professionalism of professionalism of
of visual aids) of presentation professionalism of presentation of presentation presentation
3 marks
Overall clarity of presentation 1.5 marks 1 mark 0.75 mark Below 0.75 mark
1.5 marks Extremely clear, succinct High level of clarity and Average level of clarity and Below average level of clarity and
presentation succinctness of succinctness of succinctness of
presentation presentation presentation
List of suggested Corporations law cases
Note: these cases are only suggestions. Students are encouraged to do their own research and find other cases dealing with directors’ breaches of duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Students may show their chosen case to their lecturer for confirmation prior to commencing their group report.
1. Gore v ASIC [2017] FCAFC 13
2. Asden Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dinoris (No 3) [2016] FCA 788
3. ASIC v Cassimatis (No. 8) [2016] FCA 1023
4. ASIC v Flugge (No 2) [2017] VSC 117 (sequel to ASIC v Flugge & Geary [2016] VSC 779)
5. ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited [2016] FCA 990
6. ASIC v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq) (2016)
7. ASIC v Mariner Corporation Limited [2015] FCA 589
8. Forty Two International Pty Limited v Barnes [2014] FCA 85 – delete this case as not really on directors’ duties
9. ASIC v Australian Property Custodian Holdings Limited (No 3) [2013] FCA 1342
10. ASIC v Hobbs [2012] NSWSC 1276
11. Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn [2011] NSWSC 479
12. ASIC v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2011] FCAFC 19
13. Groeneveld Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Nolten & Ors (No 3) [2010] VSC 533
14. Jubilee Mines NL v Riley [2009] WASCA 62
15. ASIC v Narain [2008] FCAFC 120
16. ASIC v Maxwell & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1052
17. ASIC v Edwards (No. 3) [2006] 57 ACSR 209
18. ASIC v Stephen William Vizard [2005] FCA 1037
19. ASIC v Plymin [2003] 175 FLR 124 (affirmed on appeal in Elliott v ASIC [2004] 10 VR 369)
20. ASIC v Parker r [2003] 21 ACLC 888; [2003] FCA 262
21. ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) [2003] FCA 1369 (27 November 2003); 203 ALR 627; 22 ACLC 1
22. ASIC v Whitlam [2002] NSWSC 591
23. R v Rivkin [2002] NSWSC 1182; 198 ALR 400; 45 ACSR 366
24. R v Firns 51 NSWLR 548; 38 ACSR 223; [2001] NSWCCA 191
25. Kokotovich Constructions Pty Ltd v Wallington (1995) 13 ACLC 1113 (NSW Court of Appeal)
HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019

Page 10 of 10
26. R v Byrnes and Hopwood (1995) 183 CLR 501; (1995) 130 ALR 529
27. AWA Ltd v Daniels (1992) 10 ACLC 933; on appeal Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438
28. Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission [1993] 9 WAR 395
29. Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd [1987] 162 CLR 285

HA3021 Corporations Law Group Assignment 2019