Dear All,
Due to the delay of the final problem question, the administrators have decided to postpone the submission and exchange of final memorials to 5th April 2010.
Details are as follows:
Date : 5th April 2010. (Monday)
Time : 5.00 pm
venue : MPBR 0018
Please prepare 5 memorials - 3 for judges,1 for exchange and 1 for marking.
Format for the memorial :
1) Please include 15 pages (maximum) of written submission after the skeletal arguments.
2) TNR, size 12, 1.5 spacing, justified.
3) Maximum 16 Authorities.
Showing posts with label MMU Law Moot Competition 2009/10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MMU Law Moot Competition 2009/10. Show all posts
Mar 31, 2010
GRAND FINAL
The Multimedia University Law Society (MULS) will be organizing a Law Moot Competition Grand Final Round 2010. The details are as follows :
Date : 10th April 2010.
Time : 8.00 am
Venue : MMU Law Moot Court (FBL Ground Floor)
Dress Code : Formal
Lunch will be provided to all law students.
Important Reminder:
- Please be reminded that no beverages and food is allowed in the court room.
- Switch off all hand phone or silent it during the court proceedings.
-Bow to the judges when entering and leaving the court room.
-Silent should be observed at all times. No talking or clapping or any disturbance is allowed.
-Please be reminded that except the official photographer, no other photographing, video taking or voice recording is permitted in the court room.
- BM (Team 16 v 2)
- ENG (Team 46 v 12)
Date : 10th April 2010.
Time : 8.00 am
Venue : MMU Law Moot Court (FBL Ground Floor)
Dress Code : Formal
Lunch will be provided to all law students.
Important Reminder:
- Please be reminded that no beverages and food is allowed in the court room.
- Switch off all hand phone or silent it during the court proceedings.
-Bow to the judges when entering and leaving the court room.
-Silent should be observed at all times. No talking or clapping or any disturbance is allowed.
-Please be reminded that except the official photographer, no other photographing, video taking or voice recording is permitted in the court room.
- BM (Team 16 v 2)
- ENG (Team 46 v 12)
Sponsors
We would like to thank to all our sponsors for supporting this event.
RM500
1. Sweet Maxwell
2. Lexis Nexis
3. Advance Display Technology Sdn Bhd
4. Rowin Rail Sdn Bhd
5. Profmetal Sdn Bhd
6. J.L.Q Enterprise
RM100-RM300
1. Khamdan.Co
2. Mr.Ramaih Abiruathis
3. Mr. Rosli bin Mohd Harun
4. Ms.Syazana Nur
Stuffs
1. Oxford Fajar (paper bags, pens, dictionaries)
2. Mr.Abd.Talib (sweets)
RM500
1. Sweet Maxwell
2. Lexis Nexis
3. Advance Display Technology Sdn Bhd
4. Rowin Rail Sdn Bhd
5. Profmetal Sdn Bhd
6. J.L.Q Enterprise
RM100-RM300
1. Khamdan.Co
2. Mr.Ramaih Abiruathis
3. Mr. Rosli bin Mohd Harun
4. Ms.Syazana Nur
Stuffs
1. Oxford Fajar (paper bags, pens, dictionaries)
2. Mr.Abd.Talib (sweets)
Final Question
English Question
In the Court of Appeal
Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Another v Michael Yeo & 6 Others
The respondents are individuals and registered proprietors of residential properties known Lot 3215 to 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘the said Properties’). The said Properties are part of Lot 8282 (‘Lot 8282’) which had been sub-divided into various sub-divided titles including the said Properties.
Adjoining the said Properties is a parcel of land known as Lot 8534 (Lot 8534) to which adjoins another parcel of land known as Lot 8655 (Lot 8655). The nearest distance between the said Properties and Lot 8655 is 52ft. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 have been set aside for the purpose of maintaining open public spaces under a development plan duly approved by the first appellant in or about April 2004 (‘the said Plan’)
The first appellant is the local authority in charge of Historical Melaka City (‘HMC’) and is vested with the powers in respect of the approval of development plans within HMC.
The second appellant, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd is a developer who submitted the said Plan and completed the development of Lot 8282 which include the said Properties.
The said Properties were built on the basis that Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 were to be reserved for public spaces. It was on this basis that the residential properties forming part of Lot 8282 were sold to the respective purchasers, including the respondents. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 too were vested in the first appellant to keep the parcels of land open for public spaces.
On 15 November 2007 the second appellant applied for an amendment to the said Plan, viz to develop Lot 8655 as two blocks of 8 storey apartments (64 units) with gymnasium at roof level and an underground car park.
Notice was given on 10 July 2008 by the first appellant in The Star and Berita Harian and also by way of a letter dated 10 July 2008 to the respondents regarding the proposed development. The respondents raised various objections in their respective letters dated 21, 22 and 23 July 2008 to the first appellant and also during a meeting convened by the Director of Town Planning of the first appellant on 18 September 2008. The objections were as follows:
i. The planning permission, if granted, would increase the density from 32 persons per acre to 98 persons per acre.
ii. The proposed development was contrary to the other type of development that has been permitted in the area, that is, low rise developments such as Taman Ayer Keroh Heights, Taman Muzaffar Heights and ‘Ibu Pejabat Kontinjen Polis Diraja Malaysia Negeri Meleka’ (IPK).
iii. HMC should commission independent consultants to study and report on the likely impact of the proposed high density development in the area.
iv. The proposed development would result in foreign labour being used that in turn would have increased the crime rate in the area. The security of the respondents would therefore be put in jeopardy by the development.
v. The proposed development would adversely affect the environment in that pollution and environmental degradation would increase.
vi. The planning permission, if granted, would amount to a breach of the respondents’ legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
On 16 July 2009 the first appellant issued a notice which was received by the respondents between 23 and 27 July 2009 whereby the first appellant informed the respondents that the first appellant was approving the development and granting permission to develop Lot 8655.
At the High Court, the respondents applied for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first appellant dated 16 July 2009. The appellants opposed the application. In allowing the application and granting an order of certiorari, the High Court held that a public decision-making body whose decision was challenged must meet the challenge by providing the reasons in granting the planning permission. The case of Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Zain Azhari bin Zainal Abidin [1997] 1 MLJ 17 was followed and the case of YAM Tunku Dato’ Seri Nazzaruddin Ibni Tuanku Jaafar v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2005] 5 MLJ 633 was distinguished. The High Court also held that the decision of the first appellant in granting the planning permission amounted to a breach of the respondents’ legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
The appellants now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:
i. the High Court judge erred in law and fact that the first appellant must provide the reasons in granting the planning permission;
ii. the High Court judge erred in law and fact that the decision amounted to a breach of the respondents’ legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
BM Question
Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan
Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Satu Lagi lwn Michael Yeo & Enam Lagi
Ketujuh-tujuh responden adalah individu dan tuan punya berdaftar harta kediaman yang dikenali sebagai Lot 3215 hingga 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘Harta tersebut’). Harta tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 yang telah dipecah bahagi kepada beberapa hakmilik termasuk Harta tersebut.
Bersebelahan Harta tersebut adalah sekeping tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8534; bersebelahan Lot 8534 pula adalah sekeping lagi tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8655. Jarak terdekat antara Harta tersebut dan Lot 8655 adalah 52 kaki. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 telah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam di bawah pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan oleh perayu pertama pada atau kira-kira pada bulan April 2004 (‘Pelan tersebut’)
Perayu pertama adalah pihak berkuasa tempatan yang bertanggungjawab ke atas Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (BMB) dan diberi kuasa ke atas sebarang kelulusan bagi pelan pembangunan dalam kawasan BMB.
Perayu kedua, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd merupakan pemaju yang mengemukakan Pelan tersebut dan menyiapkan pembangunan Lot 8282 yang termasuk Harta tersebut.
Harta tersebut telah dibina berdasarkan bahawa Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 hendaklah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam. Berdasarkan inilah harta-harta kediaman yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 telah dijual kepada para pembeli termasuk responden-responden. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 juga telah diletakhak kepada perayu pertama untuk menjaga tanah-tanah tersebut sebagai kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 15 November 2007 perayu kedua telah memohon pindaan kepada Pelan tersebut, iaitu untuk membangunkan Lot 8655 menjadi dua buah pangsapuri (64 unit) dengan gimnasium di tingkat atas dan tempak letak kereta di bawah bangunan.
Notis telah diberikan pada 10 Julai 2008 oleh perayu pertama dalam akhbar The Star dan Berita Harian dan juga melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 Julai 2008 kepada responden-responden berkenaan cadangan pembangunan atas Lot 8655. Responden-responden mengemukakan beberapa bantahan dalam surat-surat mereka bertarikh 21, 22 dan 23 Juy 2008 kepada perayu pertama dan juga semasa pertemuan yang diadakan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Perancang Bandar yang merupakan pegawai perayu pertama pada 18 September 2008. Bantahan-bantahan tersebut adalah seperti berikut:
i. Kebenaran untuk membangunkan Lot 8655, jika diluluskan, akan meningkatkan kepadatan kawasan tersebut daripada 32 orang bagi setiap ekar kepada 98 orang bagi setiap ekar.
ii. Pembangunan yang dicadangkan adalah bertentangan dengan jenis pembangunan lain yang telah diluluskan bagi kawasan tersebut, iaitu pembangunan bangunan rendah seperti Taman Ayer Keroh Heights, Taman Muzaffar Heights dan Ibu Pejabat Kontinjen Polis Negeri Melaka.
iii. BMB hendaklah melantik juru runding bebas untuk mengkaji dan membuat laporan atas kesan ke atas pambangunan berkepadatan tinggi di kawasan tersebut.
iv. Pembangunan yang dicadangkan akan menyebabkan tenaga kerja asing digunakan yang akan mengakibatkan peningkatan kadar jenayah di kawasan tersebut. Ini akan menjejaskan keselamatan responden-responden.
v. Pembangunan yang dicadangkan akan mendatangkan kesan ke atas alam sekitar iaitu pencemaran ke atas alam sekitar akan meningkat.
vi. Kebenaran untuk membangunkan Lot 8655, jika diluluskan, merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah responden-responden, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 16 Julai 2009 perayu pertama telah mengeluarkan notis yang telah diterima oleh responden-responden antara 23 dan 27 Julai 2009 di mana perayu pertama memaklumkan responden-responden bahawa pihaknya telah memutuskan untuk meluluskan cadangan pembangunan dan memberi kebenaran untuk membangunkan Lot 8655.
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, responden-responden telah memohon satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan perayu pertama bertarikh 16 Julai 2009. Kedua-dua perayu telah membantah permohonan responden-responden. Dalam membenarkan permohonan responden-responden dan memberikan perintah certiorari, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahwa sebuah badan awam yang membuat keputusan hendaklah memberikan alasan-alasannya apabila meluluskan cadangan pembangunan apabila keputusan itu dipersoalkan. Kes Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur lwn Zain Azhari bin Zainal Abidin [1997] 1 MLJ 17 telah diikuti dan kes YAM Tunku Dato’ Seri Nazzaruddin Ibni Tuanku Jaafar v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2005] 5 MLJ 633 dibezakan. Mahkamah Tinggi juga memutuskan bahawa keputusan perayu pertama dalam meluluskan cadangan pembangunan merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah responden-responden, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Perayu-perayu sekarang ini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan atas alasan-alasan berikut:
i. bahawa hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dalam undang-undang dan fakta bahawa perayu pertama hendaklah memberikan alasan-alasan apabila meluluskan cadangan pembangunan;
ii. bahawa hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dalam undang-undang dan fakta bahawa keputusan perayu pertama dalam meluluskan cadangan pembangunan merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah responden-responden, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
In the Court of Appeal
Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Another v Michael Yeo & 6 Others
The respondents are individuals and registered proprietors of residential properties known Lot 3215 to 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘the said Properties’). The said Properties are part of Lot 8282 (‘Lot 8282’) which had been sub-divided into various sub-divided titles including the said Properties.
Adjoining the said Properties is a parcel of land known as Lot 8534 (Lot 8534) to which adjoins another parcel of land known as Lot 8655 (Lot 8655). The nearest distance between the said Properties and Lot 8655 is 52ft. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 have been set aside for the purpose of maintaining open public spaces under a development plan duly approved by the first appellant in or about April 2004 (‘the said Plan’)
The first appellant is the local authority in charge of Historical Melaka City (‘HMC’) and is vested with the powers in respect of the approval of development plans within HMC.
The second appellant, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd is a developer who submitted the said Plan and completed the development of Lot 8282 which include the said Properties.
The said Properties were built on the basis that Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 were to be reserved for public spaces. It was on this basis that the residential properties forming part of Lot 8282 were sold to the respective purchasers, including the respondents. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 too were vested in the first appellant to keep the parcels of land open for public spaces.
On 15 November 2007 the second appellant applied for an amendment to the said Plan, viz to develop Lot 8655 as two blocks of 8 storey apartments (64 units) with gymnasium at roof level and an underground car park.
Notice was given on 10 July 2008 by the first appellant in The Star and Berita Harian and also by way of a letter dated 10 July 2008 to the respondents regarding the proposed development. The respondents raised various objections in their respective letters dated 21, 22 and 23 July 2008 to the first appellant and also during a meeting convened by the Director of Town Planning of the first appellant on 18 September 2008. The objections were as follows:
i. The planning permission, if granted, would increase the density from 32 persons per acre to 98 persons per acre.
ii. The proposed development was contrary to the other type of development that has been permitted in the area, that is, low rise developments such as Taman Ayer Keroh Heights, Taman Muzaffar Heights and ‘Ibu Pejabat Kontinjen Polis Diraja Malaysia Negeri Meleka’ (IPK).
iii. HMC should commission independent consultants to study and report on the likely impact of the proposed high density development in the area.
iv. The proposed development would result in foreign labour being used that in turn would have increased the crime rate in the area. The security of the respondents would therefore be put in jeopardy by the development.
v. The proposed development would adversely affect the environment in that pollution and environmental degradation would increase.
vi. The planning permission, if granted, would amount to a breach of the respondents’ legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
On 16 July 2009 the first appellant issued a notice which was received by the respondents between 23 and 27 July 2009 whereby the first appellant informed the respondents that the first appellant was approving the development and granting permission to develop Lot 8655.
At the High Court, the respondents applied for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first appellant dated 16 July 2009. The appellants opposed the application. In allowing the application and granting an order of certiorari, the High Court held that a public decision-making body whose decision was challenged must meet the challenge by providing the reasons in granting the planning permission. The case of Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Zain Azhari bin Zainal Abidin [1997] 1 MLJ 17 was followed and the case of YAM Tunku Dato’ Seri Nazzaruddin Ibni Tuanku Jaafar v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2005] 5 MLJ 633 was distinguished. The High Court also held that the decision of the first appellant in granting the planning permission amounted to a breach of the respondents’ legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
The appellants now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:
i. the High Court judge erred in law and fact that the first appellant must provide the reasons in granting the planning permission;
ii. the High Court judge erred in law and fact that the decision amounted to a breach of the respondents’ legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
BM Question
Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan
Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Satu Lagi lwn Michael Yeo & Enam Lagi
Ketujuh-tujuh responden adalah individu dan tuan punya berdaftar harta kediaman yang dikenali sebagai Lot 3215 hingga 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘Harta tersebut’). Harta tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 yang telah dipecah bahagi kepada beberapa hakmilik termasuk Harta tersebut.
Bersebelahan Harta tersebut adalah sekeping tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8534; bersebelahan Lot 8534 pula adalah sekeping lagi tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8655. Jarak terdekat antara Harta tersebut dan Lot 8655 adalah 52 kaki. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 telah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam di bawah pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan oleh perayu pertama pada atau kira-kira pada bulan April 2004 (‘Pelan tersebut’)
Perayu pertama adalah pihak berkuasa tempatan yang bertanggungjawab ke atas Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (BMB) dan diberi kuasa ke atas sebarang kelulusan bagi pelan pembangunan dalam kawasan BMB.
Perayu kedua, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd merupakan pemaju yang mengemukakan Pelan tersebut dan menyiapkan pembangunan Lot 8282 yang termasuk Harta tersebut.
Harta tersebut telah dibina berdasarkan bahawa Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 hendaklah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam. Berdasarkan inilah harta-harta kediaman yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 telah dijual kepada para pembeli termasuk responden-responden. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 juga telah diletakhak kepada perayu pertama untuk menjaga tanah-tanah tersebut sebagai kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 15 November 2007 perayu kedua telah memohon pindaan kepada Pelan tersebut, iaitu untuk membangunkan Lot 8655 menjadi dua buah pangsapuri (64 unit) dengan gimnasium di tingkat atas dan tempak letak kereta di bawah bangunan.
Notis telah diberikan pada 10 Julai 2008 oleh perayu pertama dalam akhbar The Star dan Berita Harian dan juga melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 Julai 2008 kepada responden-responden berkenaan cadangan pembangunan atas Lot 8655. Responden-responden mengemukakan beberapa bantahan dalam surat-surat mereka bertarikh 21, 22 dan 23 Juy 2008 kepada perayu pertama dan juga semasa pertemuan yang diadakan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Perancang Bandar yang merupakan pegawai perayu pertama pada 18 September 2008. Bantahan-bantahan tersebut adalah seperti berikut:
i. Kebenaran untuk membangunkan Lot 8655, jika diluluskan, akan meningkatkan kepadatan kawasan tersebut daripada 32 orang bagi setiap ekar kepada 98 orang bagi setiap ekar.
ii. Pembangunan yang dicadangkan adalah bertentangan dengan jenis pembangunan lain yang telah diluluskan bagi kawasan tersebut, iaitu pembangunan bangunan rendah seperti Taman Ayer Keroh Heights, Taman Muzaffar Heights dan Ibu Pejabat Kontinjen Polis Negeri Melaka.
iii. BMB hendaklah melantik juru runding bebas untuk mengkaji dan membuat laporan atas kesan ke atas pambangunan berkepadatan tinggi di kawasan tersebut.
iv. Pembangunan yang dicadangkan akan menyebabkan tenaga kerja asing digunakan yang akan mengakibatkan peningkatan kadar jenayah di kawasan tersebut. Ini akan menjejaskan keselamatan responden-responden.
v. Pembangunan yang dicadangkan akan mendatangkan kesan ke atas alam sekitar iaitu pencemaran ke atas alam sekitar akan meningkat.
vi. Kebenaran untuk membangunkan Lot 8655, jika diluluskan, merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah responden-responden, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 16 Julai 2009 perayu pertama telah mengeluarkan notis yang telah diterima oleh responden-responden antara 23 dan 27 Julai 2009 di mana perayu pertama memaklumkan responden-responden bahawa pihaknya telah memutuskan untuk meluluskan cadangan pembangunan dan memberi kebenaran untuk membangunkan Lot 8655.
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, responden-responden telah memohon satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan perayu pertama bertarikh 16 Julai 2009. Kedua-dua perayu telah membantah permohonan responden-responden. Dalam membenarkan permohonan responden-responden dan memberikan perintah certiorari, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahwa sebuah badan awam yang membuat keputusan hendaklah memberikan alasan-alasannya apabila meluluskan cadangan pembangunan apabila keputusan itu dipersoalkan. Kes Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur lwn Zain Azhari bin Zainal Abidin [1997] 1 MLJ 17 telah diikuti dan kes YAM Tunku Dato’ Seri Nazzaruddin Ibni Tuanku Jaafar v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2005] 5 MLJ 633 dibezakan. Mahkamah Tinggi juga memutuskan bahawa keputusan perayu pertama dalam meluluskan cadangan pembangunan merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah responden-responden, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Perayu-perayu sekarang ini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan atas alasan-alasan berikut:
i. bahawa hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dalam undang-undang dan fakta bahawa perayu pertama hendaklah memberikan alasan-alasan apabila meluluskan cadangan pembangunan;
ii. bahawa hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dalam undang-undang dan fakta bahawa keputusan perayu pertama dalam meluluskan cadangan pembangunan merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah responden-responden, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Mar 24, 2010
ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Finalists,
As what we have agreed in the meeting earlier, the new timeline are as follows:
4th April 2010 -------- submission and exchange of memorial at 9.00 pm, operation room.
10th April 2010 ------ Grand Final Round. (Tentative of the event will be informed later).
As what we have agreed in the meeting earlier, the new timeline are as follows:
4th April 2010 -------- submission and exchange of memorial at 9.00 pm, operation room.
10th April 2010 ------ Grand Final Round. (Tentative of the event will be informed later).
Mar 17, 2010
ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Semi-Finalists,
Kindly take note that you are required to register at 8.15 a.m. on the 20th March 2010.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Kindly take note that you are required to register at 8.15 a.m. on the 20th March 2010.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Mar 5, 2010
ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Semi-Finalists,
Please take note that the format for the memorial will remain the same.
No clarification is needed. The Semi-Final question has incorporated the amendments made to the preliminary round question. However, the teams should be reminded that the application in the court is assumed to be proper and in order ie. the procedural matters are NOT an issue.
As we have agreed in the meeting earlier, the new timeline are as follows:
10th March - Submission & exchange of memorial at 12 pm, Operation Room.
20th March - Semi Finals Round
Regards,
The Organizing Committee
Please take note that the format for the memorial will remain the same.
No clarification is needed. The Semi-Final question has incorporated the amendments made to the preliminary round question. However, the teams should be reminded that the application in the court is assumed to be proper and in order ie. the procedural matters are NOT an issue.
As we have agreed in the meeting earlier, the new timeline are as follows:
10th March - Submission & exchange of memorial at 12 pm, Operation Room.
20th March - Semi Finals Round
Regards,
The Organizing Committee
Feb 23, 2010
NOTICE
Please be informed that the Director wants to meet the representative from the teams that proceed to the semi finals to discuss about the timeline tomorrow, 24th February 2010 at 8 p.m, in the Law Library.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Semi Final Round Question
Semi Finals Round Question (English)
In the High Court of Malaya at Malacca
Michael Yeo & 6 Others v Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Another
The seven applicants are individuals and registered proprietors of residential properties known Lot 3215 to 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘the said Properties’). The said Properties are part of Lot 8282 (‘Lot 8282’) which had been sub-divided into various sub-divided titles including the said Properties.
Adjoining the said Properties is a parcel of land known as Lot 8534 (Lot 8534) to which adjoins another parcel of land known as Lot 8655 (Lot 8655). Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 have been set aside for the purpose of maintaining open public spaces under a development plan duly approved by the first respondent in or about April 2004 (‘the said Plan’)
The first respondent is the local authority in charge of Historical Melaka City (‘HMC’) and is vested with the powers in respect of the approval of development plans within HMC.
The second respondent, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd is a developer who submitted the said Plan and completed the development of Lot 8282 which include the said Properties.
The said Properties were built on the basis that Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 were to be reserved for public spaces. It was on this basis that the residential properties forming part of Lot 8282 were sold to the respective purchasers, including the applicants. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 too were vested in the first respondent to keep the parcels of land open for public spaces.
On 15 November 2007 the second respondent applied for an amendment to the said Plan, viz to develop Lot 8655 as two blocks of 8 storey apartments (64 units) with gymnasium at roof level and an underground car park.
Notice was given on 10 July 2008 by the first respondent in The Star and Berita Harian and also by way of a letter dated 10 July 2008 to the applicants regarding the proposed development. The applicants raised various objections in their respective letters dated 21, 22 and 23 July 2008 to the first respondent and also during a meeting convened by the Director of Town Planning of the first respondent on 18 September 2008.
On 16 July 2009 the first respondent issued a notice which was received by the applicants between 23 and 27 July 2009 whereby the first respondent informed the applicants that the first respondent was approving the development and granting permission to develop Lot 8655.
The population density of the area where the said Properties and Lots 8534 and 8655 are situated is 32 persons per acre. The proposed development of Lot 8655 would have increased the density to 98 persons per acre. The nearest distance between the said Properties and Lot 8655 is 52ft.
At the High Court, the applicants sought leave to apply for inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first respondent dated 16 July 2009. In seeking leave, the applicants raised several grounds, inter alia:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
The applicants’ application for leave, which was ex parte, was converted to an inter partes application by the judge exercising his discretion. The respondents opposed the application.
The High Court dismissed the application on both grounds. On the first ground, relying on the majority decision in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff J held that the applicants did not have locus standi in respect of the application. Since they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655, their private rights had not been interfered with and they did not suffer any special damages peculiar to them. On the second ground, the learned judge held that the applicants did not stand in direct relationship with the first respondent. Again, they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655 and did not have any direct dealings with the first respondent.
The applicants now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
Semi Finals Question (BM)
Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Melaka
Michael Yeo & Enam Lagi lwn Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Satu Lagi
Ketujuh-tujuh pemohon adalah individu dan tuan punya berdaftar harta kediaman yang dikenali sebagai Lot 3215 hingga 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘Harta tersebut’). Harta tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 yang telah dipecah bahagi kepada beberapa hakmilik termasuk Harta tersebut.
Bersebelahan Harta tersebut adalah sekeping tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8534; bersebelahan Lot 8534 pula adalah sekeping lagi tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8655. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 telah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam di bawah pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan oleh responden pertama pada atau kira-kira pada bulan April 2004 (‘Pelan tersebut’)
Responden pertama adalah pihak berkuasa tempatan yang bertanggungjawab ke atas Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (BMB) dan diberi kuasa ke atas sebarang kelulusan bagi pelan pembangunan dalam kawasan BMB.
Responden kedua, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd merupakan pemaju yang mengemukakan Pelan tersebut dan menyiapkan pembangunan Lot 8282 yang termasuk Harta tersebut.
Harta tersebut telah dibina berdasarkan bahawa Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 hendaklah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam. Berdasarkan inilah harta-harta kediaman yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 telah dijual kepada para pembeli termasuk pemohon-pemohon. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 juga telah diletakhak kepada responden pertama untuk menjaga tanah-tanah tersebut sebagai kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 15 November 2007 responden kedua telah memohon pindaan kepada Pelan tersebut, iaitu untuk membangunkan Lot 8655 menjadi dua buah pangsapuri (64 unit) dengan gimnasium di tingkat atas dan tempak letak kereta di bawah bangunan.
Notis telah diberikan pada 10 Julai 2008 oleh responden pertama dalam akhbar The Star dan Berita Harian dan juga melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 Julai 2008 kepada pemohon-pemohon berkenaan cadangan pembangunan atas Lot 8655. Pemohon-pemohon mengemukakan beberapa bantahan dalam surat-surat mereka bertarikh 21, 22 dan 23 Juy 2008 kepada responden pertama dan juga semasa pertemuan yang diadakan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Perancang Bandar yang merupakan pegawai responden pertama pada 18 September 2008.
Pada 16 Julai 2009 responden pertama telah mengeluarkan notis yang telah diterima oleh pemohon-pemohon antara 23 dan 27 Julai 2009 di mana responden pertama memaklumkan pemohon-pemohon bahawa pihaknya telah memutuskan untuk meluluskan cadangan pembangunan dan memberi kebenarann untuk membangunkan Lot 8655.
Kepadatan populasi di kawasan di mana Harta tersebut dan Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 terletak adalah 32 orang bagi setiap ekar. Pembanganun yang dicadangkan ke atas Lot 8655 akan meningkatkan kepadatan tersebut kepada 98 orang bagi setiap ekar. Jarak terdekat antara Harta tersebut dan Lot 8655 adalah 52 kaki.
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, pemohon-pemohon memohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah untuk memohon, antara lainnya, satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan responden pertama bertarikh 16 Julai 2009. Dalam permohonan untuk kebenaran mahkamah, pemohon-pemohon telah membangkitkan beberapa alasan, antara lainnya:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(i) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Permohonan pemohon-pemohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah, yang dibuat secara ex parte, telah ditukar kepada permohonan inter partes oleh hakim menggunakan budi bicaranya. Kedua-dua responden telah membantah permohonan pemohon-pemohon.
Mahkamah Tinggi telah menolak permohonan tersebut atas kedua-dua alasan. Bagi alasan pertama, bersandarkan keputusan majoriti dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia lwn Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff HMT memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai locus standi. Oleh kerana mereka bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 hak-hak peribadi mereka tidak terjejas dan mereka tidak mengalami apa-apa kerugian istimewa yang khusus kepada mereka. Bagi alasan kedua, Yang Arif Hakim memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai pertalian terus dengan responden pertama. Sekali lagi, pemohon-pemohon bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 dan tidak berurusan terus dengan responden pertama.
Pemohon-pemohon sekarang ini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan atas alasan-alasan berikut:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(ii) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
In the High Court of Malaya at Malacca
Michael Yeo & 6 Others v Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Another
The seven applicants are individuals and registered proprietors of residential properties known Lot 3215 to 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘the said Properties’). The said Properties are part of Lot 8282 (‘Lot 8282’) which had been sub-divided into various sub-divided titles including the said Properties.
Adjoining the said Properties is a parcel of land known as Lot 8534 (Lot 8534) to which adjoins another parcel of land known as Lot 8655 (Lot 8655). Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 have been set aside for the purpose of maintaining open public spaces under a development plan duly approved by the first respondent in or about April 2004 (‘the said Plan’)
The first respondent is the local authority in charge of Historical Melaka City (‘HMC’) and is vested with the powers in respect of the approval of development plans within HMC.
The second respondent, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd is a developer who submitted the said Plan and completed the development of Lot 8282 which include the said Properties.
The said Properties were built on the basis that Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 were to be reserved for public spaces. It was on this basis that the residential properties forming part of Lot 8282 were sold to the respective purchasers, including the applicants. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 too were vested in the first respondent to keep the parcels of land open for public spaces.
On 15 November 2007 the second respondent applied for an amendment to the said Plan, viz to develop Lot 8655 as two blocks of 8 storey apartments (64 units) with gymnasium at roof level and an underground car park.
Notice was given on 10 July 2008 by the first respondent in The Star and Berita Harian and also by way of a letter dated 10 July 2008 to the applicants regarding the proposed development. The applicants raised various objections in their respective letters dated 21, 22 and 23 July 2008 to the first respondent and also during a meeting convened by the Director of Town Planning of the first respondent on 18 September 2008.
On 16 July 2009 the first respondent issued a notice which was received by the applicants between 23 and 27 July 2009 whereby the first respondent informed the applicants that the first respondent was approving the development and granting permission to develop Lot 8655.
The population density of the area where the said Properties and Lots 8534 and 8655 are situated is 32 persons per acre. The proposed development of Lot 8655 would have increased the density to 98 persons per acre. The nearest distance between the said Properties and Lot 8655 is 52ft.
At the High Court, the applicants sought leave to apply for inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first respondent dated 16 July 2009. In seeking leave, the applicants raised several grounds, inter alia:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
The applicants’ application for leave, which was ex parte, was converted to an inter partes application by the judge exercising his discretion. The respondents opposed the application.
The High Court dismissed the application on both grounds. On the first ground, relying on the majority decision in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff J held that the applicants did not have locus standi in respect of the application. Since they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655, their private rights had not been interfered with and they did not suffer any special damages peculiar to them. On the second ground, the learned judge held that the applicants did not stand in direct relationship with the first respondent. Again, they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655 and did not have any direct dealings with the first respondent.
The applicants now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
Semi Finals Question (BM)
Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Melaka
Michael Yeo & Enam Lagi lwn Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Satu Lagi
Ketujuh-tujuh pemohon adalah individu dan tuan punya berdaftar harta kediaman yang dikenali sebagai Lot 3215 hingga 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘Harta tersebut’). Harta tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 yang telah dipecah bahagi kepada beberapa hakmilik termasuk Harta tersebut.
Bersebelahan Harta tersebut adalah sekeping tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8534; bersebelahan Lot 8534 pula adalah sekeping lagi tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8655. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 telah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam di bawah pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan oleh responden pertama pada atau kira-kira pada bulan April 2004 (‘Pelan tersebut’)
Responden pertama adalah pihak berkuasa tempatan yang bertanggungjawab ke atas Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (BMB) dan diberi kuasa ke atas sebarang kelulusan bagi pelan pembangunan dalam kawasan BMB.
Responden kedua, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd merupakan pemaju yang mengemukakan Pelan tersebut dan menyiapkan pembangunan Lot 8282 yang termasuk Harta tersebut.
Harta tersebut telah dibina berdasarkan bahawa Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 hendaklah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam. Berdasarkan inilah harta-harta kediaman yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 telah dijual kepada para pembeli termasuk pemohon-pemohon. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 juga telah diletakhak kepada responden pertama untuk menjaga tanah-tanah tersebut sebagai kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 15 November 2007 responden kedua telah memohon pindaan kepada Pelan tersebut, iaitu untuk membangunkan Lot 8655 menjadi dua buah pangsapuri (64 unit) dengan gimnasium di tingkat atas dan tempak letak kereta di bawah bangunan.
Notis telah diberikan pada 10 Julai 2008 oleh responden pertama dalam akhbar The Star dan Berita Harian dan juga melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 Julai 2008 kepada pemohon-pemohon berkenaan cadangan pembangunan atas Lot 8655. Pemohon-pemohon mengemukakan beberapa bantahan dalam surat-surat mereka bertarikh 21, 22 dan 23 Juy 2008 kepada responden pertama dan juga semasa pertemuan yang diadakan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Perancang Bandar yang merupakan pegawai responden pertama pada 18 September 2008.
Pada 16 Julai 2009 responden pertama telah mengeluarkan notis yang telah diterima oleh pemohon-pemohon antara 23 dan 27 Julai 2009 di mana responden pertama memaklumkan pemohon-pemohon bahawa pihaknya telah memutuskan untuk meluluskan cadangan pembangunan dan memberi kebenarann untuk membangunkan Lot 8655.
Kepadatan populasi di kawasan di mana Harta tersebut dan Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 terletak adalah 32 orang bagi setiap ekar. Pembanganun yang dicadangkan ke atas Lot 8655 akan meningkatkan kepadatan tersebut kepada 98 orang bagi setiap ekar. Jarak terdekat antara Harta tersebut dan Lot 8655 adalah 52 kaki.
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, pemohon-pemohon memohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah untuk memohon, antara lainnya, satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan responden pertama bertarikh 16 Julai 2009. Dalam permohonan untuk kebenaran mahkamah, pemohon-pemohon telah membangkitkan beberapa alasan, antara lainnya:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(i) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Permohonan pemohon-pemohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah, yang dibuat secara ex parte, telah ditukar kepada permohonan inter partes oleh hakim menggunakan budi bicaranya. Kedua-dua responden telah membantah permohonan pemohon-pemohon.
Mahkamah Tinggi telah menolak permohonan tersebut atas kedua-dua alasan. Bagi alasan pertama, bersandarkan keputusan majoriti dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia lwn Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff HMT memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai locus standi. Oleh kerana mereka bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 hak-hak peribadi mereka tidak terjejas dan mereka tidak mengalami apa-apa kerugian istimewa yang khusus kepada mereka. Bagi alasan kedua, Yang Arif Hakim memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai pertalian terus dengan responden pertama. Sekali lagi, pemohon-pemohon bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 dan tidak berurusan terus dengan responden pertama.
Pemohon-pemohon sekarang ini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan atas alasan-alasan berikut:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(ii) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
CONGRATULATIONS
We would like to apologize for delaying the release of the preliminary rounds results. This is due to long holidays of Chinese New Year.
Rule 3.2.5 stated that four highest ranking teams in each tournament will progress to the Advanced Rounds.
Below are the Top 4 rankings for Preliminary Rounds of MMU Law Moot Competition 2009/10.
BM.
1. Team No 2 – Goh Shook Mei & Lim Soon Sheng
2. Team No 16 – Andrew Law Ching Hui & Tan Yen Siang
3. Team No 10 – Siti Roslianti Rosli & Najwa Aqilah Mansor
4. Team No 42 – Chiam Fui Ting & Ashvena Jairaman
ENG.
1. Team No 12 – Ina Shafina Bt. Shahimi & Aziyan Bt. Azlan
2. Team No 46 – Teng Peck Yin & Kang Wei Luen
3. Team No 24 – Sara Nanthini Dharmaraj & Lim Qiu Jin
4. Team No 58 – Nurshafiqah Bt. Mohd Yusof & Freda Nur Adilah Bt. Mohd Noor
The draw for the Semifinal Rounds is pursuant to Official Rule 3.3.3.
Teams that proceed to the Semi Final Rounds may submit their request of problem clarification at mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com on 24th February 2010 before 5.00 pm. The formats are as follows:
To: MMU Law Moot Organizing Committee (mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com)
Cc: SAIFUL DZULHELMI (stalfia_inbox@hotmail.com)
Subject: REQUEST FOR PROBLEM CLARIFICATION [TEAM NO. BM or ENG]
*Please submit your request for problem clarification in your team's moot language.
Rule 3.2.5 stated that four highest ranking teams in each tournament will progress to the Advanced Rounds.
Below are the Top 4 rankings for Preliminary Rounds of MMU Law Moot Competition 2009/10.
BM.
1. Team No 2 – Goh Shook Mei & Lim Soon Sheng
2. Team No 16 – Andrew Law Ching Hui & Tan Yen Siang
3. Team No 10 – Siti Roslianti Rosli & Najwa Aqilah Mansor
4. Team No 42 – Chiam Fui Ting & Ashvena Jairaman
ENG.
1. Team No 12 – Ina Shafina Bt. Shahimi & Aziyan Bt. Azlan
2. Team No 46 – Teng Peck Yin & Kang Wei Luen
3. Team No 24 – Sara Nanthini Dharmaraj & Lim Qiu Jin
4. Team No 58 – Nurshafiqah Bt. Mohd Yusof & Freda Nur Adilah Bt. Mohd Noor
The draw for the Semifinal Rounds is pursuant to Official Rule 3.3.3.
Teams that proceed to the Semi Final Rounds may submit their request of problem clarification at mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com on 24th February 2010 before 5.00 pm. The formats are as follows:
To: MMU Law Moot Organizing Committee (mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com)
Cc: SAIFUL DZULHELMI (stalfia_inbox@hotmail.com)
Subject: REQUEST FOR PROBLEM CLARIFICATION [TEAM NO. BM or ENG]
*Please submit your request for problem clarification in your team's moot language.
Preliminary Rounds Ranking
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (BM)
01) Team 2
02) Team 16
03) Team 10
04) Team 42
05) Team 64
06) Team 69
07) Team 45
08) Team 19
09) Team 14
10) Team 47
11) Team 31
12) Team 83
13) Team 26
14) Team 65
15) Team 3
16) Team 11
17) Team 70
18) Team 62
19) Team 33
20) Team 18
21) Team 38
22) Team 40
23) Team 85
24) Team 13
25) Team 82
26) Team 48
27) Team 76
28) Team 87
29) Team 77
30) Team 75
31) Team 84
32) Team 5
33) Team 78
34) Team 6
35) Team 81
36) Team 34
37) Team 8
38) Team 20
39) Team 74
40) Team 7
41) Team 88
42) Team 61
43) Team 50
44) Team 71
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (English)
01) Team 12
02) Team 46
03) Team 24
04) Team 58
05) Team 27
06) Team 35
07) Team 55
08) Team 60
09) Team 66
10) Team 30
11) Team 79
12) Team 36
13) Team 53
14) Team 21
15) Team 39
16) Team 37
17) Team 80
18) Team 4
19) Team 15
20) Team 67
21) Team 43
22) Team 32
23) Team 56
24) Team 86
25) Team 59
26) Team 44
27) Team 9
28) Team 23
29) Team 49
30) Team 63
31) Team 29
32) Team 22
33) Team 51
34) Team 73
35) Team 68
36) Team 52
37) Team 72
38) Team 28
39) Team 1
40) Team 57
41) Team 25
42) Team 41
43) Team 17
44) Team 54
01) Team 2
02) Team 16
03) Team 10
04) Team 42
05) Team 64
06) Team 69
07) Team 45
08) Team 19
09) Team 14
10) Team 47
11) Team 31
12) Team 83
13) Team 26
14) Team 65
15) Team 3
16) Team 11
17) Team 70
18) Team 62
19) Team 33
20) Team 18
21) Team 38
22) Team 40
23) Team 85
24) Team 13
25) Team 82
26) Team 48
27) Team 76
28) Team 87
29) Team 77
30) Team 75
31) Team 84
32) Team 5
33) Team 78
34) Team 6
35) Team 81
36) Team 34
37) Team 8
38) Team 20
39) Team 74
40) Team 7
41) Team 88
42) Team 61
43) Team 50
44) Team 71
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (English)
01) Team 12
02) Team 46
03) Team 24
04) Team 58
05) Team 27
06) Team 35
07) Team 55
08) Team 60
09) Team 66
10) Team 30
11) Team 79
12) Team 36
13) Team 53
14) Team 21
15) Team 39
16) Team 37
17) Team 80
18) Team 4
19) Team 15
20) Team 67
21) Team 43
22) Team 32
23) Team 56
24) Team 86
25) Team 59
26) Team 44
27) Team 9
28) Team 23
29) Team 49
30) Team 63
31) Team 29
32) Team 22
33) Team 51
34) Team 73
35) Team 68
36) Team 52
37) Team 72
38) Team 28
39) Team 1
40) Team 57
41) Team 25
42) Team 41
43) Team 17
44) Team 54
Feb 16, 2010
NOTICE
Dear all,
Kindly be informed that the release of the Preliminary Rounds result will be postponed until further notice.
Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Kindly be informed that the release of the Preliminary Rounds result will be postponed until further notice.
Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Feb 12, 2010
ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear all,
The moot result for the Preliminary Rounds will be announced on Wednesday, 17th February 2010 after the Chinese New Year.
We would like to take this opportunity to wish a Happy Chinese New Year to the participants whom are celebrating.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
The moot result for the Preliminary Rounds will be announced on Wednesday, 17th February 2010 after the Chinese New Year.
We would like to take this opportunity to wish a Happy Chinese New Year to the participants whom are celebrating.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Feb 5, 2010
NOTICE
FRIDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY 2010
The Amendments and Clarifications to the Competition Problem stand i.e No procedural issues and/or grounds shall be submitted to the court.
Any memorials raising procedural issues, please let me have a look by Monday 12 noon.
Regards,
Hafiz Hassan.
The Amendments and Clarifications to the Competition Problem stand i.e No procedural issues and/or grounds shall be submitted to the court.
Any memorials raising procedural issues, please let me have a look by Monday 12 noon.
Regards,
Hafiz Hassan.
Feb 4, 2010
Time Allocation
The time allocation for the Competition is pursuant to Rule 8.2:
8.2 General Procedures
8.2.1 In a Moot, each Team is allowed forty five (45) minutes to moot, which is to be apportioned as follows:
(a) counsel – 20 minutes
(b) co-counsel – 20 minutes
(c) rebuttal and surrebuttal – 5 minutes
8.2.2 Any of the counsels in each Team is entitled to deliver a rebuttal or surrebuttal.
8.2.3 Nothing may be handed up to the judge(s).
8.2 General Procedures
8.2.1 In a Moot, each Team is allowed forty five (45) minutes to moot, which is to be apportioned as follows:
(a) counsel – 20 minutes
(b) co-counsel – 20 minutes
(c) rebuttal and surrebuttal – 5 minutes
8.2.2 Any of the counsels in each Team is entitled to deliver a rebuttal or surrebuttal.
8.2.3 Nothing may be handed up to the judge(s).
Reminder
Dear all,
Kindly take note of the following:-
8.7 Prohibition from attending a Moot
8.7.1 Team members or persons directly affiliated with any Team shall not attend a Moot in which their Team is not competing. If there is any violation the Administrator must be informed immediately, without disturbing the Moot, or immediately after the Moot has ended.
8.7.2 The Head Administrator shall have the discretion to impose a penalty on teams that violate this rule.
* Please remember to bring your own memorial to the Competition.
Kindly take note of the following:-
8.7 Prohibition from attending a Moot
8.7.1 Team members or persons directly affiliated with any Team shall not attend a Moot in which their Team is not competing. If there is any violation the Administrator must be informed immediately, without disturbing the Moot, or immediately after the Moot has ended.
8.7.2 The Head Administrator shall have the discretion to impose a penalty on teams that violate this rule.
* Please remember to bring your own memorial to the Competition.
Preliminary Rounds Itinerary
Following is the itinerary for the Preliminary Rounds (08/02/10 - 11/02/10):
7.00 pm - Registration at CLCR2007 (Upon registration, mooters will be ushered to their respective rooms)
Note: Muslims can perform their prayers at the mosque and must be at their respective rooms by 7.45 p.m.
7.30 pm - Arrival of judges.
8.00 pm - The competition begins.
10.30 pm - The competition ends.
* It is very important for the mooters to register themselves in CLCR2007 by 7.00 p.m sharp.
Thank you.
7.00 pm - Registration at CLCR2007 (Upon registration, mooters will be ushered to their respective rooms)
Note: Muslims can perform their prayers at the mosque and must be at their respective rooms by 7.45 p.m.
7.30 pm - Arrival of judges.
8.00 pm - The competition begins.
10.30 pm - The competition ends.
* It is very important for the mooters to register themselves in CLCR2007 by 7.00 p.m sharp.
Thank you.
Feb 2, 2010
Notice
Dear all,
The exchange of memorials will be held tomorrow 3rd February 2010 during 11 a.m - 3p.m at MPBR0018 (operation room). Please be punctual. We will not entertain anyone who comes after 3 p.m.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
The exchange of memorials will be held tomorrow 3rd February 2010 during 11 a.m - 3p.m at MPBR0018 (operation room). Please be punctual. We will not entertain anyone who comes after 3 p.m.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Announcement
Dear all,
With reference to the Procedural Issues posted before this, we wish to clarify that procedural issues not to be submitted to the court, referring to procedural defects under the Rules of the High Court 1980.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
With reference to the Procedural Issues posted before this, we wish to clarify that procedural issues not to be submitted to the court, referring to procedural defects under the Rules of the High Court 1980.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)