Legal Skills and Method-A case study analysis

Legal Skills and Method-A case study analysis 150 150 Affordable Capstone Projects Written from Scratch


Bachelor of Laws (Honours Degree)

Coursework (Resit)




LX1705 (LX1803): Legal Skills and Method


Word limit 3000 words



Answer the question below


Any coursework or examined submission for assessment where plagiarism, collusion or any form of cheating is suspected will be dealt with according to the University processes which are detailed in Senate Regulation 6.


You can access information about plagiarism here.


The University regulations on plagiarism apply to published as well as unpublished work, collusion and the plagiarism of the work of other students.


Please ensure that you fully understand what constitutes plagiarism before you submit your work.






A Word Document

Your assignment must be submitted via Blackboard as a Word document.


Ensure that your file is named correctly

Your file must be named as follows: 0123456LX1705LegalSkillsResit.docx (Student ID number Module Code and assignment title.docx)


Based on the following case study, answer all three question(s) numbered 1) to 3) below.


Each part is worth equal marks.





Following public concern that dry cleaners are using hazardous chemicals, Parliament enacted the (fictitious) Dry Cleaners (Licensing) Act 2018. The DCLA, which was brought into effect on the 1st July, 2018, states that any business wanting to operate a dry-cleaners must obtain a licence, renewable every five years, from the local authority responsible for the area where the dry cleaners is to be located. The DCLA provides that local authorities should grant licences to businesses that can demonstrate that they will not be using hazardous chemicals.



Penstowe District Council (PDC) announced guidelines that it would normally grant a licence to a business wanting to open a new dry-cleaners within its area, if the business had operated at least three dry cleaners for five years without having failed an inspection by local environmental health officials.



Sparkle and Shine Cleaning Ltd, (SSCL), has operated two dry cleaners for five years and has never failed an inspection by local trading standards officials. It has also obtained a report from environmental health consultants confirming that SSCL’s proposals for its new dry cleaners comfortably exceed the standards imposed by environmental health legislation.



On the 29th June an inspector from PDC served SSCL with a notice requiring SSCL to stop trading immediately. Rita, the manageress at SSCL ignored the notice believing SSCL was doing nothing wrong as the DCLA did not come into effect until the 1st July, and SSCL’s current licence was not due to expire until the end of July.




1) On the 2nd July Rita was served with a summons stating that she is being prosecuted by PDC for continuing to allow SSCL to trade in breach of the DCLA. If convicted SSCL could be fined up to £10,000 and Rita could face a sentence of imprisonment of up to six months. The date of the hearing has been set for the 4th September at Penstowe Magistrates Court. SSCL continued trading pending the outcome of its application for a new licence.


Advise Rita of any grounds that she may have for appeal if she is convicted of this offence, including the routes of appeal that may be available to her.





2) On the 4th July the Penstowe local paper published an interview with an executive officer from PDC who happened to let slip that SSCL was being prosecuted for being in breach of the DCLA. The implication was that SSCL was using prohibited chemicals.


Following publication of the newspaper article, Quality Care Homes, (QCH), that has an account with SSCL for the cleaning of its staff uniforms, is now refusing to pay last month’s dry-cleaning bill worth £2,500 and has cancelled its existing contract without giving a month’s notice as required.


Advise SSCL as to any action it may have against QCH for breach of contract, including any remedies that may be available.




3) On the 16th July, PDC rejected an application for a new licence from SSCL, claiming that SSCL did not meet its guidelines.


Advise SSCL on the likelihood of it succeeding in a claim for judicial review.