LAW2001 Participation Activity 3 – Corporate Liability Group Case Analysis & Role Play

Assessment overview

  • Course code and title: LAW2001 – Corporations Law / Corporate Law

  • Assessment: Assessment 1 – Participation Activity 3: Corporate Liability Group Case Analysis & Role Play

  • Module: 4 (Topic 4.3 – Corporate liability: tort, crime, contract)

  • Trimester: Current offering (original model: Trimester 3, 2016)

  • Individual/Group: Group work, assessed on group submission

  • Submission due: First week of Module 5 (confirm exact date in current subject outline)

  • Weighting: 2.5% of total course marks (5 marks total)

  • Prescribed textbook anchor: Chapter 7 (corporate liability for torts, crimes and contracts; attribution and directing mind doctrines)​

Learning outcomes aligned

This activity develops your ability to:

  • LO5: Identify corporate and personal risks of liability, including directors’ and officers’ duties and consequences of breach.

  • LO10: Use analytical and deductive reasoning to apply corporations law rules and principles to factual scenarios, either to resolve a problem or to identify the right questions when referring matters for legal advice.

It also targets reading, research, analytical reasoning and oral communication skills that underpin larger LAW2001 assessments.

Activity description

You will complete a group case analysis and in‑class role play on corporate liability. The activity is based on a set of three key cases dealing with corporate liability in tort, crime and contract, as covered in Topic 4.3 and Chapter 7 of the prescribed textbook.​

The objectives are to:

  • Consolidate your grasp of basic principles of corporate liability in tort, crime and contract (e.g. separate legal personality, attribution, vicarious liability, directing mind and will).

  • Practise reading and extracting the ratio decidendi from case law.

  • Develop the ability to frame arguments from the perspectives of different parties in a corporate dispute.

Group formation and case allocation

  • The class is divided into groups of three students (adjust as needed if enrolment requires a different size).

  • Each group is assigned one case from the list provided on the LMS (Blackboard) under:

    • CorpLaw.ParticipActivity3.CaseLaw.[current-trimester]

  • Within each group, each student must select one role:

    📝 Need Help With This Topic?

    Get a custom-written paper by an expert in this subject. Plagiarism-free, on time, any citation style.

    • ✓ PhD & Masters qualified writers
    • ✓ Turnitin-safe — 0% similarity
    • ✓ Free revisions + money-back guarantee
    Get My Paper Now

    From $11/page · All academic levels

    1. Plaintiff

    2. Defendant (company and/or its officer)

    3. Court

If a group has more than three students, additional members may support one of the roles (for example, junior counsel, co‑plaintiff, second judge), but only three core perspectives should be presented.

Preparation tasks

1. Case reading and research

Each student must:

  • Read the textbook summary of the allocated case (Topic 4.3, Chapter 7) carefully.​

  • Consult the full law report provided on Blackboard for more detail where possible.

  • Review the discussion of corporate liability, attribution and directors’/officers’ duties in the relevant textbook chapter and lecture notes.

You may consult additional commentary (articles, textbooks, case notes) for clarity but the focus must remain on the primary case and the corporations law principles it illustrates.

2. Case analysis using template

Using the Case Analysis & Role Play template provided on Blackboard
(CorpLaw.ParticipActivity3.Template.[current-trimester].docx), each student prepares notes covering at least:

  • Case name, citation, court and year.

  • Key facts relevant to corporate liability and directors’/officers’ duties.

  • Issue(s): the precise legal questions before the court (e.g. whether the company is criminally liable, whether the director’s acts are attributed to the company, whether a contract binds the company).

  • Law: relevant statutory provisions (e.g. Corporations Act) and common law principles (e.g. Salomon, directing mind doctrine).

  • Reasoning: the court’s analysis, including how it attributes conduct/mental state to the corporation and any discussion of directors’ duties.

  • Outcome: decision and formal orders.

  • Ratio decidendi: the central principle or rule of law derived from the case.

You must adapt the template to your allocated role, emphasising the facts and arguments that matter for that perspective.

Role play instructions

During the first week of Module 5, each group will conduct a short in‑class role play based on its allocated case:

  1. Plaintiff role

    • Presents the plaintiff’s position, including:

      🌟 Writers Who Have Helped Students Like You

      Our expert writers specialise in this subject and deliver original, well-researched papers.

      S
      Dr. Sarah M.★★★★★ 4.97 · 1,240 orders
      Nursing & Healthcare · PhD Edinburgh
      J
      Prof. James K.★★★★★ 4.95 · 980 orders
      Business & Law · MBA London

      • key facts that support liability;

      • legal issues framed in plaintiff‑friendly terms;

      • arguments as to why the company and/or its officers should be held liable (relying on statutory provisions and case law);

      • any relevant policy considerations (e.g. protection of creditors, investors, or the public).

  2. Defendant role

    • Presents the company’s and/or director’s position, including:

      • alternative characterisation of the facts;

      • arguments limiting or denying attribution of the wrongful act or state of mind to the company;

      • reliance on separate legal personality, corporate veil, or statutory protections;

      • counter‑policy arguments (e.g. commercial certainty, encouraging risk‑taking within the law).

  3. Court role

    • Summarises the competing submissions.

    • Identifies the central legal issues and the applicable principles.

    • States the judgement and explains the ratio decidendi (the reasoning and rule on which the decision rests).

    • Briefly notes any obiter comments that might be important for future cases.

The role play should be concise (typically 5–10 minutes per group) and focused on legal reasoning rather than performance.

Written component

Individual report

  • Each student must write a short individual report of approximately 200–300 words.

  • The report must:

    • state the student’s name and chosen role (plaintiff, defendant or court);

    • summarise their own contribution to the case analysis;

    • highlight at least one key legal issue and the principle applied;

      🎉 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed — or Your Money Back

      Join 12,400+ students who trust us with their academic success. Every order includes: free revisions within 30 days, plagiarism report, on-time delivery guarantee, and full confidentiality.

      ★★★★★

      4.9/5 from 12,400+ reviews

      Order & Get 20% Off

    • briefly explain how their role’s perspective links to the final outcome or reasoning.

Group submission

  • All individual reports from the group must be stapled or submitted together as a single group report, with a cover sheet listing all group members.

  • The group report is collected in class at the time of the role play.

  • Marks are awarded to the group, but individual performance may be considered in borderline or special‑circumstance cases.

Referencing and academic integrity

  • Your answers must be in your own words, except for:

    • statutory provisions, legal expressions, and short direct quotations.

  • Direct quotes or paraphrased ideas must be acknowledged using the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC).

    • Refer to the AGLC and the student referencing guide via the Torrens Library link on Blackboard.

  • Direct quotations and/or paraphrased material should not exceed 10% of your written report.

  • Do not copy or adapt case analyses from online repositories, “study help” sites or other students; doing so will be treated as plagiarism.

Marking (5 marks total; 2.5% of course grade)

Assessment focuses on evidence of reading, analysis and legal reasoning rather than presentation style. Typical criteria:

  • Case understanding (1.5 marks)

    • Accurate identification of facts, issues, law and outcome.

  • Application and reasoning (2 marks)

    • Clear legal arguments appropriate to the allocated role.

    • Correct articulation of the ratio decidendi and its connection to corporate liability and directors’ duties.

  • Clarity and structure (1 mark)

    • Logical organisation, clear expression, and adherence to the 200–300 word guideline.

  • Referencing (0.5 marks)

    • Correct and consistent AGLC referencing where applicable.

  • Prepare a short 1‑page LAW2001 participation task that analyses a corporate liability case through group role play, explains the court’s ratio and uses the Australian Guide to Legal Citation correctly.

A concise court‑role report on a leading corporate liability case would start by stating the full citation, court, and year, then briefly outlining the facts that raised the question whether the director’s fraudulent conduct should be attributed to the company. The report would identify the central issue as whether the director operated as the “directing mind and will” of the corporation so that his knowledge and intent could be treated as the company’s own. The analysis would summarise how the court applied principles of attribution and separate legal personality, explaining why some agents’ acts are considered personal rather than corporate, while others are taken as the company’s acts in law. The reasoning would then link these principles to the statutory framework on directors’ duties and corporate liability, showing how breach of duty can simultaneously expose both the company and the individual officer to consequences. Finally, the report would state the ratio succinctly, for example that where a director is entrusted with full control in a relevant area of corporate decision‑making, their fraudulent state of mind may be attributed to the company itself for the purpose of tort or criminal liability, and would note how this rule balances investor protection with the policy of limited liability.