Eamonn Farrell

Email e.p.farrell2@salford.ac.uk and

T1 2023 – By appointment; please email to arrange.

Friday 24th^th November 2023 1600hrs

For coursework assessments only: students with a Reasonable Adjustment Plan (RAP) should check their RAP to see if an extension to this submission date has been agreed.

·       http://www.salford.ac.uk/library/help/blackboard-and-collaborate

As the University will mark assessments anonymously where this is possible, please use your student roll number and not your name on your submission.

Ms Dowd seeks your help in advising her as to the best way to deal with the following problems and queries. In relation to scenarios 1 to 4 your responses should provide a response in an advisory tone acting in the role of a construction professional with legal specialism and incorporating the following;

(i)               Identify relevant area(s) of tortious liability

(ii)             Outline any relevant legal principles relating to those areas

(iii)            Explain any potential liabilities that exist relevant to the parties involved

(iv)            Discuss any possible defences that might be used to mitigate liabilities where evident

(v)             Discuss possible sanctions

(vi)            Use relevant case-law and statute as required in support of arguments

(vii)          Adopt the appropriate form of response – legal brief in an advisory tone

(viii)         Make reasonable assumptions in the development of your response where required or possible.

(ix)            Demonstrate effective research and apply both “in-text citations”, a full reference list, a bibliography, table of cases and table of statutes (in this order) at the END of the assessment (word count to follow at the end)

Scenario 1

Ms Dowd seeks advice on the current regulations relating to the use and operation of drones when undertaking surveys across her portfolio. She is keen on using modern technology but appreciates that she needs professional advice to ensure appropriate engagement.  As such you will need to consider practical implications, regulatory issues and any potential issues in tort which might arise from the improper use of such equipment.

Scenario 2

The Party Wall Act (1996) seeks to offer protection for those wishing to undertake construction operations in and around the boundary of their properties. Advise Ms Dowd on issues which might arise (eg nuisance, negligence, trespass and issues that may affect the parties such as surveyors) in the event that the Act is ignored or administered inappropriately. Refer to specific case law to support the issues identified.

Scenario 3

Ms Dowd has engaged a local contractor on the recommendation of a friend who practices as a Construction Consultant. The contract is to undertake a clearance operation on a property that is to be demolished as part of an on-going development plan. The contractor commences on site without permission and immediately causes an issue by severing an electric cable to a local factory, causing a three-day shutdown whilst the problem is resolved. Ms Dowd now wishes she had obtained references for the Contractor! As the legal advisor, outline the issues in negligence and consider the extent of losses which might be attributable to any of the parties involved, providing a rationale for your decision.

Scenario 4

With reference to the same project as above (Scenario 3), the contractor has employed a specialist sub-contractor to remove some asbestos which had been identified in the building. On leaving the site one evening, they fail to secure the hoardings. This attracts the attention of a gang of youths who enter the site, failing to notice an unprotected excavation to an old basement. One of the youths falls and is badly injured. At the same time, another youth stumbles across an unmarked, unsecured container which they open and pour on the floor, leaching through the ground into adjacent landholdings, damage might be extensive!  Considering issues in negligence, Occupier’s Liability and vicarious liability advise Ms Dowd as to the possible ramifications for the parties involved.

•          Outstanding                90% – 100%

•          Excellent                      80% – 89%

•          Very good                    70% – 79%

•          Good                           60% – 69%

•          Satisfactory                 50% – 59%

•          Unsatisfactory             40% – 49%

•          Inadequate                  30% – 39%

•          Poor                               20% – 29%

•          Very poor                    10% – 19%

•          Extremely poor            0% –   9%

Building Law Principles 2023/24 – Legal Liabilities – Grade Descriptors

90-100  OUTSTANDING

Outstanding clarity of writing style in the appropriate format (third person) and referencing written as an exemplary professional advisory brief. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure are outstanding throughout

Outstanding development of coherent arguments underpinned by appropriate evidence/authority based on original use of case law and statute

Outstanding depth of understanding of relevant most current legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios, accurate in all instances with excellent assumptions made enabling development of in-depth legal thought.

Outstanding capacity for original and critical thought, including professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues

80-89 EXCELLENT

Excellent clarity of writing style in the appropriate format (third person) and referencing written as an exemplary professional advisory brief. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure is excellent throughout.

Excellent development of coherent arguments underpinned by appropriate evidence/authority based on original use of case law and statute.

Excellent depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios, accurate in all instances with excellent assumptions made enabling development of in-depth legal thought.

Excellent capacity for original and critical thought, including professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues.

70-79 VERY GOOD

Very good clarity of writing style in the appropriate format (third person) and referencing written as a very good professional advisory brief. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure is very good throughout.

Very good development of coherent arguments underpinned by appropriate evidence/authority based on original use of case law and statute.

Very good depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios, accurate in most instances with very good assumptions made enabling development of appropriate legal thought.

Very good capacity for original and critical thought, including professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues.

60-69 GOOD

Good clarity of writing style in the appropriate format (third person) and referencing written as good professional advisory brief. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure is good throughout.

Good development of coherent arguments underpinned by appropriate evidence/authority based on original use of case law and statute.

Good depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios, accurate with good levels of consistency with good assumptions made enabling development of appropriate legal thought.

Good capacity for original and critical thought, including professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues.

50-59 Satisfactory

Satisfactory clarity of writing style in the appropriate format (third person) and referencing written as a satisfactory legal advisory brief. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure is satisfactory throughout.

Satisfactory development of coherent arguments underpinned by appropriate evidence/authority based on original use of case law and statute.

Satisfactory depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios, accurate in some instances with fair assumptions made enabling development of some  legal thought.

Satisfactory capacity for original and critical thought, including professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues.

40-49 Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory clarity of writing style in the appropriate format (third person) and referencing written as advisory brief. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure is unsatisfactory throughout

Unsatisfactory development of arguments with lack of appropriate evidence/authority based on use of case law and statute

Unsatisfactory depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios, with inaccuracies accurate in some instances with minimal relevant assumptions made and lack of development of legal thought.

Unsatisfactory capacity for original and critical thought, lack of professional and commercial awareness such as identifying some mitigating circumstances/reliable defences relating to tortious issues

30-39 UNSATISFACTORY

Unsatisfactory clarity of writing style and referencing with little evidence of a professional advisory brief. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure are unsatisfactory throughout

Unsatisfactory development of arguments lacking appropriate evidence/authority relating to use of case law and statute

Unsatisfactory depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and which fails to apply legal concepts to the given scenarios, mostly inaccurate, few assumptions made with minimal evidence appropriate of legal thought.

Unsatisfactory capacity for original and critical thought, minimal professional and commercial awareness relating to the identification of mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across  tortious issues

20-29 POOR

Poor clarity of writing style, inappropriate format utilised, lacking coherent referencing. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure are poor throughout

Poor development of coherent arguments with weak, inaccurate evidence/authority with reference to use of case law and statute

Poor depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios, with misleading assumptions which fail to develop appropriate legal thought.

Poor capacity for original and critical thought, minimal professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues

10-19 VERY POOR

Very poor clarity of writing style and presentation of information. The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure are very poor throughout

Very poor development of coherent arguments, little or no appropriate evidence/authority based on original use of case law and statute

Very poor depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and minimal application of concepts to the given scenarios, no assumptions and lack of any in-depth legal thought.

Very poor capacity for original and critical thought, including no professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues

0-9 EXTREMELY POOR

Extremely poor clarity of writing style, inappropriate format and referencing . The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including punctuation, grammar, syntax and structure are extremely poor throughout

Extremely poor development of coherent arguments. No use of appropriate evidence/authority based on original use of case law and statute

Extremely poor depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts, no application of concepts evident, no assumptions or subsequent development of any legal thought.

Extremely poor capacity for original and critical thought, no professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences across a range of tortious issues

The assignment will be assessed strictly in accordance with the following criteria. Please ensure that you address each of these in relation to Scenarios 1 to 4 when writing your assignment. No marks will be awarded against any other criteria.

• Clarity of writing style in the appropriate format (professional advisory brief format) which conveys information logically and concisely and with referencing in accordance with Harvard APA. Quality and consistency of grammar, spelling and punctuation and advisory brief format adopted.

(25 marks overall, 5 marks per question)

• Ability to develop coherent arguments relevant to each scenario (appropriate area of law identified) underpinned by appropriate evidence/authority based on relevant case law and statute.

(25 marks overall, 5 marks per question)

• Depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts and ability to apply concepts to the given scenarios. Consideration of possible alternatives / appropriate assumptions where relevant enabling development of legal points.

(25 marks overall, 5 marks per question)

• Capacity for original and critical thought, including professional and commercial awareness such as identifying mitigating circumstances/reliable defences. Evidence of research and application of information demonstrating novel approaches and use of up-to-date information / case law / statute.

(25 marks overall, 5 marks per question)

Knowledge and Understanding

Practical, Professional or Subject Specific Skills

Module Aims

For Apprentices Only

Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours (KSB)

1. Critically evaluate the nature of building surveyors’ legal obligations and liabilities.

2. Critically analyse the nature of property and construction clients’ legal obligations and liabilities and discuss the legal rules affecting the operation of their businesses.

3. Critically evaluate key aspects of the law relating to construction, land, property and the environment.

4. Interpret and advise on the meaning of complex legal rules from case law and statutory provisions.

5. Contextually apply relevant and diverse areas of law to complex factual situations commonly encountered in the development and construction process.

1. To develop a systematic understanding of the broad legal environment within which the chartered building surveying profession operates.

2. To provide a critical awareness of the core legal skills and knowledge in order to prepare students for vocational training as chartered building surveyors.

3. To develop a comprehensive understanding of the legal obligations existing between the parties and their professional advisers within the context of building surveying practice

Not Applicable

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving YES

Data Literacy NO

Digital Literacy NO

Industry Awareness YES

Innovation and Creativity YES

Proactive Leadership NO

Reflection and Life-Long Learning NO

Self-management and Organisation YES

Team Working NO

Any words in excess of the overall amount (2,500 words) will not be penalised but will not be considered for marking.

The title page and contents page, “In-text references” and the reference list/bibliography/table of cases / table of statutes are excluded from the word count.

You must clearly state the word counts used in your Brief at the end of the Reference List/Bibliography / Table of Cases / Table of Statutes.

Academic integrity & referencing

Referencing

Academic Misconduct is an action which may give you an unfair advantage in your academic work. This includes plagiarism, asking someone else to write your assessment for you or taking notes into an exam. The University takes all forms of academic misconduct seriously. 

You can obtain support for this assessment by;

Via the Frequently Asked Question section on Blackboard

–        By email (e.p.farrell2@salford.ac.uk ) Emails will be answered within 2 working days.

You can find more information about understanding your assessment brief and assessment tips for success here.

Assessment Rules and Processes

You can find information about assessment rules and processes in Blackboard in the Assessment Support module.

Develop your Academic and Digital Skills

Find resources to help you develop your skills here.

Concerns about Studies or Progress

If you have any concerns about your studies, contact your Academic Progress Review Tutor/Personal Tutor or your Student Progression Administrator (SPA).

askUS Services

The University offers a range of support services for students through askUS including Disability and Learner Support, Wellbeing and Counselling Services.

Personal Mitigating Circumstances (PMCs)

If personal mitigating circumstances (e.g. illness or other personal circumstances) may have affected your ability to complete this assessment, you can find more information about the Personal Mitigating Circumstances Procedure here.  Independent advice is available from the Students’ Union Advice Centre about this process. Click here for an appointment to speak to an adviser or email advicecentre-ussu@salford.ac.uk.

Assessment Feedback Sheet

We know that having to undergo a reassessment can be challenging however support is available.  Have a look at all the sources of support outlined earlier in this brief and refer to the Personal Effectiveness resources.