Question:
As you are aware, the superior courts in different jurisdictions have taken slightly different approaches to equitable doctrines such as unconscion ability and undue influence. This is particularly
marked in English law, as compared to Australian law, for instance, in relation to both unconscionable conduct and undue influence.
LLB251 Equity Research Assignment-Australia.

LLB251 Equity Research Assignment-Australia.

In Singapore, the approach may be different again: in BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83, [132] and [133], Andrew Phang Boon Leong J of the Singapore Court of Appeal rejected what he called a‘broad’doctrine of unconscionability, which his Honour exemplified by reference to the leading Australian case of Commercial Bank of Australia Limited v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 (‘Amadio’).

Do you consider that His Honour’s characterisation of the decision in Amadio and of the Australian doctrine of unconscionable dealing was accurate? What were the grounds upon which Phang J rejected a ‘broad’ doctrine of unconscion ability and do you agree with the reasoning that his Honour adopted in doing so? You should support your analysis by discussion of the history and development of the doctrine of unconscionability in Australia, up to and beyond Amadio, with detailed reference to at least THREE (3) Australian cases.

Students please note the following:
This limit does not include footnotes provided those notes are used for referencing only and do not include any substantive material. If substantive material is included in footnotes, then it must be counted towards the word count and identified separately on the cover page of your assignment.

Students should supply a bibliography / list of references at the end of their assignment. The bibliography / reference list is also not included in the word count.

LLB251 Equity Research Assignment-Australia.

LLB251 Equity Research Assignment-Australia.

The word limit does not include words on the cover page. The word limit is hard i.e. there is no dispensation to go ‘5% or 10% over’.

Words over the 1800 limit will not be read or marked.

All assignments must be double spaced and typed in 12-point Times New Roman font, allowing a minimum 2.5 cm margin on both the left and right sides and at the top and bottom of the page.

Each page of the assignment – including the cover page – should be numbered.

You must include the following information on the cover page of your assignment:
o your name
o your student number
o the number of words (not including footnotes or reference list unless as directed above).

Marks may be deducted for non-compliance with formatting requirements and word limit at the discretion of the marker in consultation with the unit coordinator.

WORTH: 50% of the marks for this unit. (NOTE: 30 marks for substance and 20 marks for expression/style)

RESEARCH: This is a research essay. This means that you are expected to:

  • go beyond the textbook and suggested readings;
  • use the resources (including law texts and law journals) available in the Murdoch Law Library and the databases available through the Murdoch Library website

to conduct your own research into the essay topic and to incorporate your findings into your answer to the essay question.

FURTHER DETAILS: See pages 12– 15 of the Unit Guide for detailed requirements, in particular the marking criteria (p. 13), extensions and late submission (p. 14).

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
Avoiding plagiarism and collusion – Urkund
Plagiarism, collusion and assignment ‘outsourcing’ (ghost-writing) are increasing problems within Universities. For that reason, the School of Law has implemented a policy requiring the final version of all assignments to be submitted to Urkund, a web-based application that checks for plagiarism (including collusion). Urkund checks text submitted electronically against text in its database, the web and electronic journals and Urkund produces an originality report that shows matched text in colour and a percentage rating.

You will not see a copy of the Urkund report or be able to submit your assignment to Urkund more than once. The purpose of the report is to provide a reference for the marker of your assignment. It should be noted that due to the type of question in this assignment, it is expected that there may at times be some minor degree of similarity between assignments, especially those assignments run through Urkund close to the assignment due date. However, this will not excuse any academic dishonesty.

LLB251 Equity Research Assignment-Australia.

LLB251 Equity Research Assignment-Australia.

Consequences of breach
Students should further note that where an academic integrity breach is suspected, the matter will be investigated meticulously. A confirmed breach of academic integrity standards will be dealt with initially through formal internal University processes and may result in application of various penalties, including failure in a piece of assessment or in the entire unit, and exclusion from the University in the most serious cases.Law students should particularly note the possible effects of breaches of academic integrity for admission to practice law. The School of Law may be required to formally report the student and offence to the Legal Practice Board of WA at the time of their application for admission. Therefore… if you have any concerns about academic integrity requirements, you should seek advice as a matter of priority through the teaching and learning support services of the University and your unit coordinator.