Company law – BBAL401
T4, 2016
Company law
Group Assignment and Presentation
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this assignment, students will be able to:
• Recognise the laws relating to companies in Australia; and
• Examine the duties, rights and responsibilities of company officers
Due date: Week 6.1
1. Form a group of 2 students.
2. Select a case below to find, read, understand and present.
3. The length of the written assignment is to be approximately 2000 Words. (Each member of the group must write 1000 words).
4. The written assignment and presentation slides must be in the IRAC method. Maximum 8 slides, and three short points per slide.
5. Each member of the group is to present two parts of the IRAC method (I= issues and facts; Relevant laws and principles; A= Arguments of the parties and analysis, C= conclusion and court outcome).
6. The task is worth a total of 40% of your final marks.
Case Options (lecturer approval required)
1. Forrest v ASIC (2014)
2. ASIC v Citigroup (2007)
3. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq) v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (in liq) [2016] FCA 934 (11 August 2016)
4. Stimpson, in the matter of Eagle Boys Dial-A-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Eagle Boys Dial-A-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 935 (11 August 2016)
5. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v CME Capital Australia Pty Ltd, in the matter of CME Capital Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 544 (16 May 2016)
6. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bilkurra Investments Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 371 (15 April 2016)
7. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Astra Resources PLC [2015] FCA 759 (24 July 2015)
8. ASIC v Soust (2010)
9. North v Marra Developments Ltd (1981)
10. Fame Decorator Agencies Pty Ltd v Jeffries Industries Ltd (1998)
11. Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995)
12. Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (1990)
13. Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd (as Trustee of Advance Property Fund) v Stout and Others (1999)
14. Nassar v Innovative Precasters Group Pty Ltd (2009)
15. McGellin v Mount King Mining NL (1998)
16. Beck v Weinstock (2013)
17. Kinsela v Russell Kinsela Pty Ltd (in liq) (1986)
18. ASIC v Hellicar (2012)
19. ASIC v Lindberg (2012)
20. Shafron v ASIC (2012)
21. ASIC v Healey (2011)
22. Vines v ASIC (2006)
23. ASIC v Adler (2002)
24. Brunninghausen v Glavanics (1999)
25. ASIC v Rich (2003)
26. ASIC v Parker (2003)
27. ASIC v Loiterton (2004)
28. ASIC v PFS Business Development Group Pty Ltd (2006)
29. Hall v Poolman (2007)
30. ASIC v Australian Investors Forum Pty Ltd (No. 2) (2005)
31. State of South Australia v Marcus Clark (1996)
32. ASIC v Vizard (2005)
33. ASIC v McDonald (No.11) (2009)
34. ASIC v NRMA (2002)
35. ASIC v Plymin (2003)
36. ASIC v Cyclone Magnetic Engines Inc (2010)
37. ASC v MacLeod (2000)
38. Biodiesel Producers Ltd v Stewart (2007)
39. AXA Asia Pacific Holdings Ltd v Direct Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd (2009)
40. Wilson v Manna Hill Mining Corporation Pty Ltd (2004)
41. Wenzel v ASX Ltd (2002)
42. R v Rivkin (2004)
43. Kwok v R (2007)
44. Isak Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Faress (2003)
45. Capricornia Credit Union Ltd v ASIC (2007)

Group presentation and assignment
Assessment and Feedback Form
Group Members:
Term/Date:
Group oral
presentation and visual slides
50%
Written Assignment:
Identify the facts of the case
10%
Written Assignment:
Explain the relevant law relating to the case 10%
Written Assignment:
Discuss the legal arguments raised by the parties in case
10%
Written Assignment:
Summarise the judgement of the case
10%
Written Assignment:
Illustrate the role, purpose and scope of the relevant court, or tribunal. 10%
ASSESSMENT TOTAL
100%
SUBJECT TOTAL
/40%
Criteria High Distinction
80% - Distinction
70%- 79% Credit
60-69% Pass
50-59% Fail
0-49%
Group oral
presentation and visual slides
At all times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous;
2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;
3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case;
engaging;
4. the presentation slides were logical and structured; and
5. the oral presentations were interesting and engaging.
At all times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous;
2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;
3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and
4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
Most of the times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous;
2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;
3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and
4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
Some of the times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous;
2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;
3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and
4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
At no times:
1. the group was cohesive and courteous;
2. the oral presentations were clear and understandable;
3. the oral presentations were accurate or precise in relation to the details of the case; and
4. the presentation slides were logical and structured.
Written Assignment:
Identify the facts of the case
All of the facts are clearly and accurately detailed with reference to cases with similar facts. All of the facts are clearly and accurately detailed. All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately summarised. Some of the facts are clearly and accurately outlined in brief. The facts are not clearly or accurately outlined.
Written Assignment:
Explain the relevant law relating to the case All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately detailed, and the Act and related cases are referenced and discussed. All of the relevant law is clearly and accurately detailed. Most of the relevant law is clearly and accurately summarised. Some of the relevant law is clearly and accurately outlined in brief. The relevant law is not clearly or accurately outlined.
Written Assignment:
Discuss the legal arguments raised by the parties in case
All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed, and there is a synthesis with the relevant law.
All the legal arguments are clearly and accurately detailed.
Most of legal arguments are clearly and accurately summarised.
Some of the legal arguments are clearly and accurately outlined in brief.
The legal arguments are clearly or accurately outlined.
Written Assignment:
Summarise the judgement of the case
The decision of the judge is accurately detailed with reference to any dissenting judgements or precedents. The decision of the judge is accurately detailed. The decision of the judge is accurately summarised in summary format. The decision of the judge is accurately outlined in brief. The decision of the judge is inaccurate or incomplete.
Written Assignment:
Illustrate the role, purpose and scope of the relevant court, or tribunal. The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were perfectly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were very clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were fairly clear, logical, formatted, and grammatically correct.
The role, purpose, and scope of the court or tribunal were absent.
ASSESSMENT TOTAL
SUBJECT
TOTAL