Description
Service Required : Coursework/Assignment
Subject : Company/Business/Partnership Law
Level of Study : Undergraduate
Target Grade : Undergraduate 1st
Length: 3000 Words (~12 pages)
Delivery Time : 14 Days
Time for requesting changes : Standard 7 days
Paper instructions : Assignment
‘The statutory reform of directors’ duties in the Companies Act 2006 has been a success,
since section 172 has moved away from the dominance of the principle of shareholder
supremacy.’ Critically analyse this statement with reference to section 172 of the
Companies Act 2006 and other relevant authoritative sources.
Word Count
The MAXIMUM word count for this piece is 3000 words. This does not include your
bibliography or title. It does include your footnotes.
Please use OSCOLA referencing
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Royal Holloway, University of London
Department of Law and Criminology
LL3004: Company Law
Summative Coursework
Dates
Assignment released to students on:
29/11/2023
Assignment due in on:
NOON on 15 January 2024
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.
Assignment
‘The statutory reform of directors’ duties in the Companies Act 2006 has been a success,
since section 172 has moved away from the dominance of the principle of shareholder
supremacy.’ Critically analyse this statement with reference to section 172 of the
Companies Act 2006 and other relevant authoritative sources.
Word Count
The MAXIMUM word count for this piece is 3000 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.
1. For work which exceeds the upper limit by up to and including 10%, the mark will
be reduced by ten percent of the mark initially awarded;
2. For work which exceeds the upper limit by more than 10% and up to and including
20%, the mark will be reduced by twenty percent if the mark initially awarded;
3. For work which exceeds the upper limit by more than 20%, the mark will be reduced
by thirty percent of the mark initially awarded.
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.
Format
Essays should be typed, 1.5 spaced, in Times New Roman or other legible font, size 12.
Royal Holloway, University of London
Department of Law and Criminology
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 protected].
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.
Marking Advice:
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.
High
First:
82+
Content
Structure
Reading
Referencing
Writing
style
Substantial
originality in
interpretation.
Coherent and
exemplary
structure of
argument,
very well
focussed
discussion,
excellent
synthesis of
Outstanding
evidence of
in-depth,
independent
reading.
Particularly
wide range
across
academic
Excellent
presentation
, flawless intext and
bibliographic
referencing.
Incisive,
fluent, no
errors of
spelling,
punctuation,
or grammar.
Royal Holloway, University of London
Department of Law and Criminology
materials,
exceptional
use of
authorities
with clear
innovations in
form.
First:
72+
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.
Upper
Second:
62-68%
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
literature
and shows
an
outstanding
ability to
synthesise
writers’ ideas
and
arguments.
Significant
evidence of
in-depth,
independent
reading.
Ranges
across
academic
literature
and shows
ability to
synthesise
writers’ ideas
and
arguments.
Substantial
coverage of
recommend
materials,
evidence of
reading
beyond
lectures and
standard
texts.
Excellent
presentation
, accurate intext and
bibliographic
referencing
section.
Incisive,
fluent, no
significant
errors of
spelling,
punctuation,
or grammar.
Well
presented,
detailed
referencing,
wellformatted
bibliography
section.
Fluent style,
few spelling,
punctuation
or grammar
errors.
Royal Holloway, University of London
Department of Law and Criminology
Lower
Second:
52-58%
Satisfactory
understanding
and/or
knowledge,
suitable focus,
lacking in
originality.
Third:
42-48%
Limited,
general
understanding
and/or
knowledge,
some
omissions/ina
ccuracies,
weak focus.
Marginal
Fail:
32-38%
Limited and
fragmentary
understanding
and/or
knowledge,
little evidence
of learning,
significant
gaps/errors.
Lacks focus.
Appropriate
structure, but
some
inadequacies
in linking
ideas
together. A
solid but
unremarkable
use of
authorities.
Simple but
sufficient
structure,
formulaic
argument
based on
lectures or
texts and an
insufficient
use of
authorities.
Weak or
indistinct
structure,
heavily
dependent on
direct
teaching and
limited
reference to
relevant
authorities.
Limited
further
reading,
adequate
coverage of
recommend
ed texts.
Adequately
presented,
satisfactory
referencing/
bibliography
section.
Simple style,
some errors
of spelling,
punctuation
or grammar.
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.
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.
Royal Holloway, University of London
Department of Law and Criminology
Medium
Fail:
22-28%
Low Fail:
2-18%
Very limited
knowledge
and/or
understanding
, substantial
gaps and
inaccuracies,
lacking in
focus.
Shows only
the most
limited and
fragmentary
knowledge of
the subject
with little or
no
understanding
of essential
principles.
Inadequate
structure, no
sustained
discussion,
lack of logical
argument
with no
relevant
authorities
used.
Very weak
structure,
virtually
devoid of
discussion, no
ascertainable
argument
with no
relevant
authorities
used.
No evidence
of further
reading.
Poor
presentation
, few/no
references,
poorlywritten
bibliography
section.
Inadequate
style, with
substantial
errors of
spelling,
punctuation,
or grammar.
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.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
