ACC/A27/9.3.4.2

Dublin Business School

Programmatic Review

02 May 2012

Programme Award and Title: LLB Bachelor of Laws

Provider: Dublin Business School

Award/s (including exit awards): LLB

NFQ Level: 8

ECTS: 180

Mode of attendance: Day and Evening

Mode of delivery: FT and PT

First Intake: 1 September 2012

Anticipated number of intakes per year (indicate month(s) of intake):

One

Date and Location of event: DBS, 02 May 2012

Date of next review: To be completed by January 2015

DBS LLB Panel Summary The Panel recommends that HETAC validates the current programme, now designated as Bachelor of Laws (LLB), until the end of the current validation period (last intake September 2014) as envisaged under the 2010 joint validation by HETAC and the University of Wales. The Panel was cognisant of the fact that the review was necessitated as a result of the changing circumstances with regards to the University of Wales. This did not provide sufficient time to undertake a substantial and thorough review of the programme. A number of issues have been identified by the Panel which should be addressed during the next Programmatic Review. The Panel also notes the position of the Honourable Society of the King’s Inns regarding their accreditation of the programme in light of the changes wrought by the move away from the University of Wales as a validation body for the programme. The professionalism and enthusiasm of staff was to be commended. The session with the students, though their numbers were down due to exam sittings, affirmed a good academic experience from the learner viewpoint.

SECTION TWO: EVENT DETAILS Purpose of the review: The purpose of this review is to assess the transfer of validation of the programme from a joint award to a HETAC validated award. The programme in its current form underwent programmatic review in May 2010 and is validated up to, and including, a September 2014 intake. It has been agreed with HETAC that this current review is for the purpose of transfer of validation arrangements and that the period of validation will not be extended. Panel Membership: Dr Barry O’Connor, Cork Institute of Technology Chair / QA Expert Dr Fergus Ryan, Dublin Institute of Technology Subject Expert Dr Lynn Ramsey, Letterkenny Institute of Technology Subject Expert Ms Caroline Gill, Law Library Professional Representative Meeting with Senior Management: Gerry Muldowney CEO, DBS Dr. Eileen Buckley-Dhoot Director of Academic Affairs Dr. Adrian Guckian Acting Head of School of Business and Law Stuart Garvie Academic Registrar Meeting with Programme Team:

DBS Lecturing Staff Barry Halton Dr Eimear Long Maryrose Molloy Elaine Walsh Louise Murphy Colin Dunlea Mary Gordon Ronan Cosgrove Support Services Staff Alannah O Reilly Employer Liaison Officer Carol Clifford Careers Officer Caitriona McGratton Education and Welfare Officer Jane Buggle Head of Library Careers and Student Services Documentation Submitted: Terms of Reference for the Review Self Evaluation Report including: Module Descriptors Proposed Course Schedule Staff CVs Tabled: Quality Assurance Handbook Learning Resources Document

SECTION THREE: OUTCOMES

1. APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION Following consultation with the senior management, programme team, support services and students of the course, and review of the documentation provided, the panel has produced the following recommendations. The panel recommends that the programme should be validated as a HETAC single award from September 2012 for the remainder of the validation period (Last intake September 2014). 2. CONDITIONS LLB Bachelor of Laws Given the context of the current review (transfer of the award from a jointly-validated award to a HETAC-only award) the Panel concluded that it was not appropriate to impose any conditions on the continuing validation. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel would strongly urge DBS to consider implementing the following recommendations in advance of a de novo HETAC validation exercise in 2014.

1. Greater emphasis should be placed on developing more analytical skills throughout the programme.

2. There is an absence of Teaching & Learning and Assessment Strategies across the programme.

The programme and module Teaching & Learning and assessment strategies should be specific to the Programme and the respective modules. Currently they are only expressed in generic terms. Such strategies need to be developed and be explicit in all aspects of the programme. There is a need for greater diversity of assessment.

3. Development of oral communication and presentation skills should be a strong feature across all

stages of the programme, particularly in light of the further education/ career pathways to the King’s Inns. This is possible to incorporate into the course immediately and without amending the proposed course schedule.

4. Learning Outcomes for Continuous Assessment need to be re-examined. The provision of repeat assessment opportunities for significant Continuous Assessment components, , in the course of the academic year, should be reconsidered.

5. A capstone module should be introduced into the Final year. This is a requirement for honours

degree programmes. This would serve to demonstrate accumulated learning across the course. The credits could be made available for this by reducing some 15 credit modules.

6. Higher Order Learning Outcomes, appropriate to a Level 8 award, should be specified and

attained in Final Year. These are not clearly evident in the current programme.

7. Stakeholder engagement needs to be formalised and put on a more structured, evidence-based

footing within the programme. 8. As students of a Third Level institution, the LLB students should be able to avail of other ‘non-

law’ DBS modules, perhaps as elective choices .Consideration should be given to the sharing of modules with other academic areas of DBS allowing to facilitate this.

SECTION FOUR: CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSAL MEETING WITH SENIOR MANAGEMENT Following from a private panel meeting, the panel met with the senior management of DBS. The chair asked the CEO to give a background to the programme and how DBS had arrived at the present juncture. A brief background to the course and its acquisition from Portobello College was supplied by the CEO. The CEO also outlined the relationship with the University of Wales. He discussed how this transition was part of an overall strategy of DBS in moving all its programmes to single award only from the Irish validation authority, HETAC. The transition strategy for existing students was also outlined, wherein existing students of the programme would be given the option to stay on the current joint award course or change to the single award option. The panel queried if the students on the programme have been consulted. The management group responded in the affirmative to this. The panel was also concerned about the gap in quality assurance that would be created by the University of Wales being removed from the programme. The Director of Academic Affairs outlined how DBS had traditionally operated within three sets of QA procedures and underwent a large project to rationalise this into one set of policies and procedures starting in 2009 with a collaborative review with LJMU and completed with the Institutional Review in 2010. These DBS procedures now satisfy the requirements of all three validating bodies, HETAC, University of Wales and Liverpool John Moores University. The management team also outlined how they had appointed an internal moderator from within Kaplan, Dr Giles Procter, the Head of Kaplan Law School, and how Dr Procter would support the programme team by fulfilling the function of moderator left vacant by the University of Wales. This process would remain in place for the foreseeable future. The Panel noted with some concern that the previous ‘Internal Moderator’ was formally in post for 7 years, as part of a 17 year involvement with the programme on behalf of the University of Wales. While this position was not that of an External Examiner, nonetheless, it is a key role in terms of the internal Academic Quality Assurance mechanisms. DBS should take cognisance of the relevant HETAC Guidelines on External Examiners as they might pertain to this Internal Moderator role within the overall DBS/KAPLAN QA structure. The panel also enquired about the relationship with King’s Inns. The senior management group explained that King’s Inns had been consulted about the strategy that DBS was undertaking and have provided written confirmation that they are happy to continue recognition of the programme should it be a HETAC only award. This confirmation is appended to the ToR. The issue of staff development opportunities was also raised by the panel. The senior management group explained that funding was available to all staff through the Schools for staff development or via the Research Committee for more general conference attendance etc. There is also extensive in-house training

provided, most recently on 1st year assessment strategies. Compliance training on HETAC policy and procedures is currently being arranged for all staff in the College in advance of September 2012. MEETING WITH THE PROGRAMME TEAM: The chair of the panel firstly asked about the stakeholder analysis which had been undertaken in advance of the validation event. While acknowledging the efforts made to elicit responses, the panel was concerned that four responses from stakeholders was on the low side and queried who had been asked to respond to the questionnaire and how many. The panel was informed that 24 different stakeholders were approached via email with the survey. The programme team mentioned that they may alter in future the method by which the research is carried out to ensure more engagement on behalf of the stakeholder. The Director of Academic Affairs explained that DBS was aware of the deficiency in evidencing stakeholder involvement and was actively working on improving stakeholder involvement at all levels. The panel then asked about the career opportunities for graduates of the programme. The programme team outlined the difference between day and evening students, wherein the evening students were already in employment, for example, the civil service and the Irish military. Many were also in private employment where their employers paid for the student to undertake the degree. A number of students have also progressed to study for the Nigerian Bar examinations. A module - Commercial law - had been introduced previously to meet the requirements of this. The panel was concerned about the number of opportunities for students to deliver oral presentations. The programme team mentioned that this requirement was recognised and had now been incorporated into the Tort module, Legal Skills and some seminars. The Law of Evidence module would also have a presentation component coming on stream in the next year. The panel also queried the absence of a capstone module, for example, a Research Project/Dissertation module in the final year of the degree. The panel stated that the requirements of the King’s Inns recognition constrained the students in their choice of modules at year 3. The programme team also mentioned that competitor analysis also showed an absence of a project module and that when it had been offered on the course previously, that the update had been quite low. Instead of one capstone module, law degrees traditionally use final year modules to bring together the learning from the course. This was described as a capstone strategy. Entry: The panel asked the programme team what the entry requirements were for the course. They informed the panel that there was a basic entry requirement for the programme and that the average number of CAO points for entry was approx. 250 and that this reflected demand rather than ability. They also stated that there was no correlation between points and retention, in that students holding lower points struggled with the course. However, difficulty with the course is not exclusive to lower points students only; some bright students simply were not engaged in the course. Structure and Curriculum: The panel was interested in how the jointly awarded programme was mapped onto the single award. The generic HETAC Award Standards were used as a basis for this process. The team looked at what they wanted from the programme as a whole. These matched reasonably well with the modules as they were, which resulted in their needing only minor amendments and a rephrasing of the learning outcomes at module and programme level to reflect the HETAC standards.

The panel queried the title of the module ‘Public International Law and Human Rights’. The team had decided that the area of international law was too broad to adequately cover the material comprehensively in one module. The panel also asked about recognition of the degree in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. The panel was informed that that DBS would be giving the students the opportunity to study some English Law modules as an ‘add-on’ to the degree in order to sit for the English Bar examinations. They were currently consulting with Dr Proctor and developing a Special Purpose Award. Assessment: The panel was interested in the relationship between the University of Wales External moderator, internal moderators and external examiners. It was explained that under HETAC exam papers are first sent to a DBS internal moderator and then the external examiner. The external examiner also sees a sample of annotated scripts. The difference with the University of Wales degrees was that the External Moderator also had an opportunity to view examination papers before they were sent to the External Examiner. Since the position was currently vacant, Dr Proctor had undertaken to review all exam papers before they were sent out to External Examiners. The verification and appeals process was also outlined. The Panel noted the dearth of Examination Appeals that have arisen within the LLB programme to date. Student Support and Guidance: The panel enquired about the support that was available to students. The team mentioned that student attendance was monitored and that students who had regular absences are followed up with to ensure their continued engagement with the course. The students also have the opportunity to meet the lecturerss on a one to one basis if necessary. The lecturers also have office hours for meetings with students. Non-submission of assignments is also followed up in order to continually engage with students. The online learning resource Moodle is used by all staff to provide notes and additional information for the module to students. It is also possible to track participation of students on Moodle. Assignments and results are also distributed to students on this forum. The students also had access to an Information literacy librarian for information on essay writing referencing etc, some of these classes were embedded into lectures to ensure uptake. MEETING WITH STUDENTS: The panel met with 4 students from the programme – two day students and two evening students All of the students felt that there were sufficient resources at DBS; however, a video link option

might be considered by DBS in the future. The students outlined that they had been informed of the issues concerning the University of Wales.

While the students did not think that the lack of recognition from the University of Wales would have an impact on the quality or attractiveness of the degree for future applicants, they had signed up to a U of Wales degree, and expected to get this qualification. They did comment however that the most important thing was that they had a degree that was recognised by the King’s Inns.

The students also outlined the procedure for submission of assignments and the provision of feedback to students. They were happy with this process.

They highlighted an issue with the lack of presentation opportunities in the course. This would be beneficial for them in terms of their future careers and would like it to be more of a feature of the course.

The students were satisfied with the method of assessment in the course. They prefer to have individual assessments rather than group work.

The students reported that lecturers were very approachable and helpful. If students felt that they needed more information then the lecturers were happy to point them in the right direction.

Objectives of Programmatic Review

1. Analyse the effectiveness and efficiency of each validated programme, including detail of learner numbers, retention rates and success rates

The panel was satisfied with learner numbers, retention and success rates.

2. Review the development of the programme in the context of the requirements of employers, industry, professional bodies, the Irish economy and international developments

Development of the programme is strongly weighted towards King’s Inns and Law Society requirements. It is hoped that the programme would adequately prepare the students for entrance examinations to either professional body. As a Level 8 degree programme, the Learning Outcomes should reflect an appropriate breadth as should be expected on an Honours Bachelor degree.

3. Evaluate the response of the Department to market requirements and educational developments

The LLB programme serves an important niche, and addresses the needs of a diverse range of students seeking a qualification in law.

4. Evaluate the feedback mechanisms for learners and the processes for acting on this feedback

The feedback to learners on their work seems, to the panel, to be very satisfactory.

5. Evaluate the physical facilities and resources provided for the provision of the programme

The panel is satisfied that the physical facilities and resources are adequate for the provision of the programme.

6. Evaluate the formal links which have been established with industry, business and the wider community in order to maintain the relevance of its programme

There is a strong link between the DBS and King’s Inns.

7. Evaluate feedback from employers of the programmes’ graduates and from those graduates

This area needs to be strengthened and put on a formal footing.

8. Review any research activities in the field of learning under review and their impact on teaching and learning

Evidence was not presented of significant active research, though some staff members are developing a research profile and pursuing publication opportunities. Some staff members are active in professional practice.

9. Evaluate projections for the following five years in the programme/field of learning under review

This Programmatic Review process will transition the programme which is already in place and, as such, recommendations for changes to the programmes will be put in place for preparation for the next programmatic review will take place in 2014-15 as previously expected.

10. Make proposals in relation to updating the programme and modules; proposals in relation to the discontinuation of modules and the development of new modules. The panel was satisfied with the proposed programme and its structure. They queried the absence of a capstone module and a project in Year 3.

HETAC’s Core Validation Policy and Criteria

1. Minimum intended programme learning outcomes and their compliance with the relevant awards standard(s) as determined by HETAC

More analytical Level 8 Learning Outcomes should be a feature in the final year of the programme.

2. The prerequisite learning for participation in the programme and any other assumptions

relating to the programme’s target learners While entry standards may be lower than in similar programmes, other factors, particularly within the mature/evening learner cohorts, enable programme outcomes to be met.

3. Module learning outcomes and prerequisite requirements The panel believes that the mapping that has taken place between the existing and new modules has been appropriate and in line with the general standards on assessment.

4. Programme and module assessment strategies Learning Outcomes for Continuous Assessment need to be re-examined. The provision of repeat assessment opportunities for significant Continuous Assessment components should be reconsidered.

Student feedback indicates that the students are satisfied with the way the course is assessed generally. The panel was satisfied that the information with regards to assignments was provided to students in a timely manner. The panel would like to see more oral presentations being employed in the assessment strategy of some modules as presenting is viewed as a key skill for future careers.

There is a need for greater diversity of assessment.

5. Teaching and learning strategies employed There is a certain absence of a Teaching & Learning and Assessment Strategies across the programme. Such strategies need to be developed and be explicit in all aspects of the programme.

6. The operation of access, transfer and progression

The panel was informed that average CAO points on entry were 250 and that this reflected demand rather than ability. They also stated that there was a correlation between points and retention, in that students holding lower points struggled with the course. Difficulty with the course is not exclusive to lower points students only e.g. some students may have been sent to the college at the behest of their parents.

7. Relevant research activities The issue of staff development opportunities was also raised by the panel. The senior management group explained that funding was available to all staff through the Research

Committee. There is also extensive in-house training provided, most recently on 1st Year assessment strategies.

8. Links with relevant industry and/or professional bodies The chair of the panel asked about the stakeholder analysis which had been undertaken in advance of the validation event. While acknowledging the efforts made to elicit responses, the panel was concerned that four responses from stakeholders was on the low side and queried who had been asked to respond to the questionnaire and how many. The panel were informed that 24 different stakeholders were approached via email with the survey. The programme team mentioned that they may alter in future the method by which the research is carried out to ensure more engagement on behalf of the stakeholder. There also exists a close relationship with King’s Inns, the professional body which trains barristers in Ireland. King’s Inns recognition of the degree is essential to its provision.

9. Profile and qualifications of teaching staff There are five full time lecturers and 3 fractional staff teaching on the course, in addition to permanent part-time staff. The panel was impressed by the engagement by the staff in the review process and their ‘ownership’ of the programme.

10. Level and appropriateness of resources available The panel enquired about the support that was available to students. The team mentioned that attendance was monitored and that students who had regular absences were followed up to ensure their continued engagement with the course. The students also have the opportunity to meet the lecturers on a one-to-one basis if necessary. The lecturers also have office hours for meetings with students. Non-submission of assignments is also followed up in order to continually engage with students. The online learning resource Moodle is used by all staff to provide notes and additional information on each module to students. It is also possible to track participation of students on Moodle. Assignments and results are also distributed to students on this forum. There is also an extensive catalogue of law library resources available to the students with a dedicated library in the Dame Street Building.

11. Benchmarking against other similar programmes

In preparation for the 2014 re-validation exercise, it is essential that the LLB programme be adequately benchmarked against the suite of similar degree programmes currently mapped onto the National Framework of Qualifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dublin Business School 

Provider Response to the Programmatic Review ‐ Report Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Incorporating Implementation Plan  

 

This report is in response to the report of the Peer Review Group (Panel) on the Programmatic Review of the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) carried out on the 2nd of May 2012.  The report includes an Implementation Plan to address the Panel’s recommendations. 

DBS would like to extend our thanks to the Panel for their time devoted to reviewing this programme, the thoroughness of the review and the collegiate approach to the team meetings conducted during the Panel’s visit to DBS.  DBS welcome the outcome as stated in the report: 

“The Panel recommends that the programme should be validated as a HETAC single award from September 2012 for the remainder of the validation period (Last intake September 2014).” 

There were no conditions of validation imposed by Panel.  The Panel have made some recommendations that will enhance this programme.  Some of these can be implemented immediately and some, relating to the structure of the programme will be used to inform the programmatic review in 2014, as suggested in the Panel’s report. 

Implementation Plan 

 1. Greater emphasis should be placed on developing more analytical skills throughout the programme.  In the first year, analytical skills are introduced to the learners in the Legal Skills module. The programme team will ensure that learners are aware of the need to develop and demonstrate these skills throughout the programme. The team have reviewed the module descriptors and the teaching and learning strategies contained therein to ensure that there is greater emphasis on developing more analytical skills throughout the programme and will revisit this further in advance of the next programmatic review in 2014.  

2.  There is an absence of Teaching & Learning and Assessment Strategies across the programme. The programme and module Teaching & Learning and assessment strategies should be specific to the Programme and the respective modules. Currently they are only expressed in generic terms.  Such strategies need to be developed and be explicit in all aspects of the programme. There is a need for greater diversity of assessment.   The School of Law has been integrated recently as part of a new School of Business and Law. Most of the programmes in the School of Business and Law are due to be programmatically reviewed over the 

coming academic year (2012‐13).  In preparation for this the School is currently reviewing its overall Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategy.  The teaching, learning and assessment strategies for this specific programme will be more clearly structured as a coherent strategy within the programme and between the levels.  The strategies will be specific to the programme and to the individual modules, will provide for greater diversity of assessment, will be more clearly articulated and will demonstrate compatibility with the overall strategy of the School.  3.  Development of oral communication and presentation skills should be a strong feature across all stages of the programme, particularly in light of the further education/ career pathways to the King’s Inns. This is possible to incorporate into the course immediately and without amending the proposed course schedule. 

This will be addressed immediately.  The programme team agrees with the Panel regarding the importance of developing these key transferrable skills and have implemented the following changes to ensure learners have an opportunity to develop these skills: 

In first year, it is proposed to introduce a debate into the module Criminal Law – which will be introduced in the format of a formative, non‐credit bearing assessment. This will give the learners an opportunity to experiment and develop their presentation style early in the programme. In order to measure the development of these skills, the first year module Legal Systems contains an oral presentation as part of its summative assessment.  

In second year, the learners will undertake an oral presentation in the Tort module and in the final stage of the programme, those learners taking the Law of Evidence module are also required to make an oral presentation which is assessed. 

The programme team will continue to explore opportunities for further development of communication and presentation skills throughout the programme. 

4.  Learning Outcomes for Continuous Assessment need to be re‐examined. The provision of repeat assessment opportunities for significant Continuous Assessment components should be reconsidered.  The programme team will re‐examine the learning outcomes for continuous assessment and will ensure that the match between the learning outcomes and their associated assessment instruments is more carefully considered at the next review, and that clear constructive alignment between learning outcomes and assessment will be set out appropriately.   The programme team will be careful to ensure the revised assessment strategies are applied across this programme to assess the revised learning outcomes in continuous assessments and examinations. 

DBS provide a reassessment opportunity for any failed component of a module where that module has been failed overall.  This includes reassessment opportunities for failed elements of continuous assessment.   

5.  A capstone module should be introduced into the Final year.  This is a requirement for honours degree programmes.  This would serve to demonstrate accumulated learning across the course. The credits could be made available for this by reducing some 15 credit modules.   

Currently the programme does not have a capstone module in the final year.  As with most law programmes it is expected that learners will use the knowledge, knowhow and skill, and competence acquired in the programme in all of their final year options.  The team acknowledge the requirement of a more clearly defined capstone strategy and this will be addressed prior to the next programmatic review. 

6.  Higher Order Learning Outcomes, appropriate to a Level 8 award, should be specified and attained in Final Year. These are not clearly evident in the current programme.  The programme team will review all of the programme and module learning outcomes in preparation for the programmatic review in 2014. 

7.  Stakeholder engagement needs to be formalised and put on a more structured, evidence‐based footing within the programme.  Each School has recently developed a formal stakeholder database which includes employers.  In addition the Employer Liaison Offices undertakes surveys which give employers the opportunity to provide detailed feedback on the proposed course structure and the content of a programme being reviewed.  In preparation for the next review the Employer Liaison Officer will work more closely with the School and the programme team in formally capturing feedback from employers as part of the School’s on‐going engagement with employers and other stakeholders.   

8.  As students of a Third Level institution, the LLB students  should be able to avail of other ‘non‐law’  DBS modules, perhaps as elective choices .Consideration should be given to the sharing of modules with other academic areas of DBS allowing to facilitate this.    As part of the overall strategy within the School of Business and Law, the structure and design of the LLB will be reviewed during the next programmatic review. This review will consider a move away from the current 15 ECTS module structure to a structure that is more compatible with the integration of modules from areas such as business and arts into the programme. The School welcomes this strategy as it is agreed that this increased selection of modules would be of benefit to the learners.  However professional recognition will be an important consideration in determining the structure of the LLB. 

 

23  

ProposedProgrammeSchedule Name of Provider:  Dublin Business School 

Programme Title (i.e. Named Award):   Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Award Title6 (HETAC Named Award):  Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Stage Exit Award Title3  Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Modes of Delivery (FT/PT):  FT/PT 

Award Class4  Award NFQ level  Award EQF Level Stage (1,2,3,4,…, or 

Award Stage): Stage NFQ Level2  

Stage EQF 

Level2 

Stage Credit 

(ECTS) 

Date 

Effective 

ISCED 

Subject 

code 

Major  8    1  6  

60 September 

2012  

Module Title 

(Up to 70 characters including spaces) 

Semester no 

where 

applicable. 

(Semester 1 

or Semester2) 

Module  

ECTS 

Credit 

Number5 

Total Student Effort Module (hours) Allocation Of Marks (from the 

module assessment strategy) 

Status 

NFQ 

Level1 

where 

specified 

Total 

Hours 

Contact 

Hours 

Hours of 

Independent 

Work 

C.A. 

% 

Proj. 

% 

Prac. 

% 

Exam. 

% 

Contract Law     M  6  15  375  100  275        100 

Constitutional Law    M  6  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Criminal Law    M  6  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Legal Systems    M  6  10  250  50  200  50      50 

Legal Skills     M  6  5  125  50  75  100       

Special Regulations (Up to 280 characters) 

 

24  

 

Name of Provider:  Dublin Business School 

Programme Title (i.e. Named Award):   Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Award Title6 (HETAC Named Award):  Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Stage Exit Award Title3  Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Modes of Delivery (FT/PT):  FT/PT 

Award Class4  Award NFQ level  Award EQF Level Stage (1,2,3,4,…, or 

Award Stage): Stage NFQ Level2  

Stage EQF 

Level2 

Stage Credit 

(ECTS) 

Date 

Effective 

ISCED 

Subject 

code 

Major  8    2  7  

60 September 

2012  

Module Title 

(Up to 70 characters including spaces) 

Semester no 

where 

applicable. 

(Semester 1 

or Semester2) 

Module  

ECTS 

Credit 

Number5 

Total Student Effort Module (hours) Allocation Of Marks (from the 

module assessment strategy) 

Status 

NFQ 

Level1 

where 

specified 

Total 

Hours 

Contact 

Hours 

Hours of 

Independent 

Work 

C.A. 

% 

Proj. 

% 

Prac. 

% 

Exam. 

% 

Law of Tort    M  7  15  375  100  275  50      50 

European Union Law    M  7  15  375  100  275        100 

Law of Real Property    M  7  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Company Law    M  7  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Special Regulations (Up to 280 characters) 

 

 

Name of Provider:  Dublin Business School 

Programme Title (i.e. Named Award):   Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

25  

Award Title6 (HETAC Named Award):  Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Stage Exit Award Title3  Bachelor of Laws (LLB) 

Modes of Delivery (FT/PT):  FT/PT 

Award Class4  Award NFQ level  Award EQF Level Stage (1,2,3,4,…, or 

Award Stage): Stage NFQ Level2  

Stage EQF 

Level2 

Stage Credit 

(ECTS) 

Date 

Effective 

ISCED 

Subject 

code 

Major  8    Award  8  

60 September 

2012  

Module Title 

(Up to 70 characters including spaces) 

Semester no 

where 

applicable. 

(Semester 1 

or Semester2) 

Module  

ECTS 

Credit 

Number5 

Total Student Effort Module (hours) Allocation Of Marks (from the 

module assessment strategy) 

Status 

NFQ 

Level1 

where 

specified 

Total 

Hours 

Contact 

Hours 

Hours of 

Independent 

Work 

C.A. 

% 

Proj. 

% 

Prac. 

% 

Exam. 

% 

Law of Equity and Trusts    E  8  15  375  100  275        100 

Administrative Law    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Law of Evidence    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Jurisprudence    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Commercial Law    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Family Law    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Medical Law and Ethics    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Employment Law    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Media Law    E  8  15  375  100  275  25      75 

Public International Law and Human 

Rights   E  8  15  375  100  275  100       

Special Regulations (Up to 280 characters)