Showing posts with label MMU Law Moot Competition 2013/2014. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MMU Law Moot Competition 2013/2014. Show all posts

Oct 24, 2013

Briefing

Skeleton Arguments

       A skeleton (or skeletal) argument is a brief statement of the legal arguments of a counsel.
       It outlines counsel's arguments and lists the authorities counsel will be relying on.
      It must be taken seriously as it is part of the memorial and available to the judge beforehand.
      It makes reference to the authorities being relied on for each contention in the arguments.
      So, the judge will know in advance both the nature of arguments and the authorities to support those arguments.
      However, there may be restrictions on the number of cases that may be referred to. Therefore, it is best to refer to the most relevant and authoritative cases.
       A good skeleton argument is one that is –
      brief;
      in simple language;
      intelligible; and
      clear and structured.
       Aim for ABC –
      accuracy;
      brevity; and
      clarity.
       There is a well-recognised basic arrangement for skeleton arguments.
       It consists of at least three principal elements –
      the heading;
      the  submissions;
      the conclusion.

List of Authorities

       There is a well-recognised basic arrangement for skeleton arguments.
       It consists of at least three principal elements –
      the heading;
      the  submissions;
      the conclusion.
       Your skeleton arguments will make reference to the authorities being relied on for each contention in the arguments.
       You must therefore prepare a list of authorities. This will also be part of the memorial.
      Arrange the authorities in the order they are to be cited – it makes for easy reference and smooth presentation of your arguments.
      It is wise to flag the authorities and to highlight the portion of the authority that will be cited to the court.

Memorials

       MMU Law Moot Competition Rules (the Rules) require that each team prepare and submit a memorial.
       The structure of the memorial is set out in Schedule 1 of the Rules.
       Tips to remember:-
      Memorials:
       In written submission
       Authorities referred should be highlighted for easy reference i.e. highlighted the paragraph that counsels referred to for the argument

Oct 22, 2013

Briefing on Memorial Format

Dear mooters,

Please be informed that a briefing on the memorial format for the Law Moot Competition 2013/2014 will be held on 23rd October 2013 at CLCR001 from 8.00pm to 10.00pm. Attendees are required to obey the MMU dress code.

Thank you.

Regards,
Law Moot Competition 2013/2014 High Committee.

Oct 8, 2013

MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY LAW MOOT COMPETITION RULES AND REGULATIONS

The following are the rules and regulations of the Competition:


1. DEFINITION

1.1 Abbreviations

“MMU” refers to Multimedia University.

“MULS” refers to Multimedia University’s Law Society.

1.2 General Definition

“Administrator” means the person appointed to administer a Moot.

“Advanced Rounds” means the Semifinal Rounds and the Final Round.

“Bailiff” means the person who maintains order during a Moot.

“Competition” means the Law Moot Competition organised and administered by MULS.

“Competition Director” means the director of the Competition who is a member of the MULS and who heads the Organising Committee.

“Competition Problem” means the official competition question for the Preliminary Rounds and the Advanced Rounds as supplemented or corrected by any official Problem Clarifications or corrections.

“Head Administrator” means the person in charge of the panel of Administrators.

“Memorial” means the written pleadings of each Team, written and submitted in pursuant to these Rules.

“Moot” means the round of mooting in the Competition.

“Official Timetable” means the official timetable of the Competition.

“Organising Committee” means the members of the MULS who are in charge of organising and managing the Competition.

“Preliminary Rounds” means the rounds of mooting to determine the four (4) highest ranking Teams in each Tournament that would progress to the Advanced Rounds.

“Problem Clarifications” means the official clarifications of the Competition Problem and of these Rules.

“Rules” means the Law Moot Competition Rules, subject to any supplementary rules.

“Team” means any team registered for the Competition.

“Tournament” means the English Tournament, the official language of which is the English language, and the Bahasa Malaysia Tournament, the official language of which is Bahasa Malaysia.

1.3 Interpretation

In these Rules unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) words and expressions in the singular include the plural, and words and expressions in the plural include the singular;
(b) words and expressions importing the masculine gender include feminine.


2. ORGANISATION OF THE COMPETITION

2.1 Organising Committee and Competition Director

2.1.1 The Organising Committee shall administer the Competition.

2.1.2 The Competition Director in consultation with the Head Administrator shall have the final say in all matters or disputes related to the conduct of the Competition.

2.1.3 Competition Director shall not:
(a) sit as a judge nor influence the judge(s) in any way;
(b) provide any assistance or instructions to any Team participating in the Competition;
(c) prejudice any participating Team in any way.

2.2 Administrator(s)

2.2.1 There shall be a panel of Administrators who are law academicians.

2.2.2 The Head Administrator will appoint an Administrator for a Moot and will designate the date and location for each Moot.

2.2.3 The Administrators must conduct a Moot consistent with these Rules and in consultation with the Head Administrator.

2.2.4 The Head Administrator shall serve as final arbiter of implementation and interpretation of these Rules.

2.2.5 Administrators shall not:
(a) serve as coach or in any other way assist a Team registered in his or her Moot;
(b) prejudice any participating Team in any way.


3. STRUCTURE OF THE COMPETITION

3.1 Competition Tournaments

3.1.1 Unless otherwise specified in the supplementary rules, the Competition consists of two (2) Tournaments:
(a) the English Tournament; and
(b) the Bahasa Malaysia Tournament.

3.1.2. Teams participating in each Tournament will be determined by a random draw after the close of registration in the Official Timetable.

3.1.3 Each Tournament consists of two (2) levels:
(a) the Preliminary Rounds; and
(b) the Advanced Rounds.

3.1.4 Preliminary Rounds is applicable if there are more than sixteen (16) participating Teams.

3.2 Preliminary Rounds

3.2.1 Unless otherwise specified in the supplementary rules, all Teams shall compete in the Preliminary Rounds.

3.2.2 The pairing of Teams in the Preliminary Rounds shall be determined by a random draw.

3.2.3 In the event that an odd number of Teams register for the Competition, the odd Team will moot ex parte in accordance with Rule 8.4.2.

3.2.4 The Administrators may modify the pairings to account for absent Teams or other contingencies. If Teams must be newly paired, they must be provided their new opponents’ Memorials as soon as reasonably possible, but in no event less than fifteen (15) minutes prior to the start of the newly paired round.

3.2.5 Four highest ranking Teams in each Tournament will progress to the Advanced Rounds.

3.3 Advanced Rounds

3.3.1 The Advanced Rounds consist of the Semifinal Rounds and the Final Round.

3.3.2 Teams progressing to the Advanced Rounds will be announced after the conclusion of the Preliminary Rounds.

3.3.3 The draw for the Semifinal Rounds is as follows (where Team A is the highest placed team and Team D the lowest placed team):

Round 1: Team A v Team D
Round 2: Team B v Team C

3.3.4 The winning Team from each Semifinal Round progresses to the Final Round.


4. PARTICIPATION AND ELIGIBILITY

4.1 Team Eligibility

4.1.1 All MMU law students are eligible to participate in the Competition.

4.1.2 The number of Teams eligible to participate shall be determined by the Organising Committee.

4.2 Registration

4.2.1 Each Team must complete and submit a registration form to the Organising Committee by the registration deadline in the Official Timetable.

4.2.2 Each Team must remit the appropriate registration fee (if any) by the registration deadline in the Official  Timetable. The amount of registration fee payable (if any) will be prescribed in the supplementary rules.



4.3 Team Composition and Number as Identification

4.3.1 Unless otherwise specified in the supplementary rules, a Team is composed of two (2) members, namely one (1) counsel and one (1) co-counsel.

4.3.2. Each Team will be assigned with a team number by the Organising Committee upon registration.


5. COMPETITION PROBLEM

5.1 Release of Competition Problem

5.1.1 The Competition Problem will be released on the date or dates in the Official Timetable and the same facts in the Competition Problem will be used throughout the Competition.

5.2 Problem Clarifications

5.2.1 Teams may submit written requests for clarifications of the Competition Problem to the Head Administrator by the date in the Official Timetable.

5.2.2 Problem Clarifications will be limited to factual clarifications of the Competition Problem and no legal clarifications will be allowed.

5.2.3 The Head Administrator in with the panel of Administrators will publish Problem Clarifications on the date in the Official Timetable.

5.2.4 Each Team must ensure that it receives and adequately notes the Problem Clarifications in preparation for the Competition.


6. JUDGES

6.1 Eligibility of Persons to Judge

6.1.1 The Head Administrator shall determine the persons who are eligible to serve as judges in the Competition.

6.1.2 Judges should disqualify themselves from judging a Team if they have a personal or professional relationship with someone affiliated with that Team, and if that relationship might jeopardise their impartiality or create an appearance of impropriety. However, judges should not disqualify themselves from judging a round merely because they have an acquaintance with a Team member.

6.2 Number of Judges

6.2.1 The Preliminary Rounds are heard by one (1) judge.

6.2.2 The Advanced Rounds may be heard by one (1) judge or a panel of three (3) judges.

6.3 Commentary by Judges

Judges are encouraged to provide direct feedback to the Teams regarding the Teams’ performance at the completion of a Moot. In providing such feedback, judges are advised to give due regard to the time limitations and schedule of the Competition.


7. MEMORIALS

7.1 Submission of Memorials

7.1.1 Each Team must prepare and submit a Memorial.

7.1.2 Each Team must submit the hardcopy of the Memorial to the Head Administrator on the date and time specified in the Official Timetable. The duty to prepare the hardcopy of the Memorial is on each Team.

7.2 Language of Memorials

Teams must submit Memorials in the official language of the Tournament in which they are participating.

7.3 Structure of Memorials

Rules relating to formatting, content, citation and anonymity of memorials are set out in Schedule 1.


8. MOOT

8.1 Language

Teams must moot in the official language of the Tournament in which they are participating. Interpreters will not be available.


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).

8.3 Extension of Time

Judges may, at their discretion, permit time extensions if counsels are requested to elaborate their argument.

8.4 Ex Parte Procedure

8.4.1 In circumstances where after waiting five (5) minutes, a Team fails to appear for a scheduled Moot, the Administrator may allow the Moot to proceed ex parte.
8.4.2 In the ex parte proceeding, the attending Team shall present its oral submissions, which is scored by the judge(s) to the extent possible as if the absent Team had been present and arguing. In such a case, unless supported with justifiable reasons, the Team that fails to appear for the scheduled Moot forfeits all scores stipulated under Rule 9.1.1(a).

8.5 Communications during a Moot

Only communications listed below are permitted:

(a) A counsel may communicate with the judge(s), and the judge(s) may communicate with that counsel, during the counsel’s allotted time.
(b) Counsels are not permitted as to communicate orally with each other to avoid disruptions and distractions. All communication at the counsel table shall be in writing.
(c) Counsels shall not communicate either orally or in writing with spectators or the Bailiff.




8.6 Spectators

The Preliminary Rounds and Advanced Rounds are open to the general public. During a Moot, the presence of the Team’s coaches, advisors, or other spectators affiliated are permitted in the courtroom.

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.

8.8 Audio and Videotaping

8.8.1 No audio or videotaping of moots is permitted without the advance permission of the judge(s) and the Administrator. The use of any appliance, capable of storing audio and/or video is prohibited during the Competition.

8.8.2 Participating Teams are not permitted to view or listen to any such audio tape until after the completion of the Tournament in which the taped Moot occurs.

8.8.3 MULS reserves all rights to the audio and videotaping, or any other form of audio or visual reproduction, of any Moot or part thereof. All Teams participating in the Competition are deemed to have consented to taping and broadcasting of that Moot.

8.9 Computers and Laptops in Courtrooms

During a Moot, counsels shall not operate laptops, handheld or desktop computers or computing devices for any purpose.


9. SCORING SYSTEM

9.1 Method of Scoring

9.1.1 The scoring system consists of two parts, namely:
(a) Scoring of the Moot (70%);
(b) Scoring of the Memorial (30%).

9.1.2 A Team’s total competition score is the sum total of (a) and (b). For the break down of the scores, refer to Schedule 2 and 3.

9.1.3 Scores for the Memorials will be given by the Administrator(s), and such scores may not be revealed to the judge(s). Scores for the Moot will be given by the respective judge(s).

9.1.4 All decisions made in the scoring system are at the discretion of the Administrator(s) and/or judge(s) and shall not be disputed.

9.1.5 Administrators and judges must keep confidential from all Teams the exact score in each pairing, and each judge’s determination in the pairing.

9.1.6 Only the identity of the Teams progressing to the Advanced Rounds and the winning Team(s) in the Advanced shall be revealed.

9.2 Determination of Ranking in Preliminary Rounds

9.2.1 Teams shall be ranked by the highest sum total of Rule 9.1.1(a) and (b).

9.2.2 In the event of a tie, Teams having the higher score for the Moot shall be ranked higher.

9.2.3 In the event of a tie in respect of the Moot score, Teams having the higher score for the legal content of the Memorial shall be ranked higher.

9.2.4 In the event of a tie with respect to both the Moot and the Memorial, Teams progressing to the Advanced Rounds shall be decided by the panel of Administrators and the decision shall not be disputed.

9.3 Determination of Winners in Advanced Rounds

9.3.1 The winner of a Moot in the Advanced Rounds will be the Team having the highest sum total of Rule 9.1.1(a) and (b).

9.3.2 In the event of a tie, the Team having the higher score for the Moot shall be the winner.

9.3.3 In the event of a tie in respect of the Moot score, the Team having the higher score for the legal content of the Memorial shall be the winner.

9.3.4 In the event of a tie with respect to both the Moot and the Memorial, the winner shall be decided by the judge or panel of judges, whichever is applicable, and the decision shall not be disputed.


10. AWARDS

10.1 Winner of the Tournament

The winning Team in the Final Round in each Tournament wins the Tournament and will receive the Challenge Trophy.


10.2 Best Oralist

10.2.1 In each Moot, the counsel with the highest individual oral score in Rule 9.1.1(a) shall be deemed to be the Best Oralist.

10.2.2 In the event of a tie, the judge(s) shall have the discretion to determine the Best Oralist, and such decision shall not be disputed.

10.2.3 Only the Best Oralist in the Final Round will be eligible for the Best Oralist Trophy.

10.3 Best Memorial

10.3.1 In the Final Round, the Team with the highest score for the Memorial in Rule 9.1.1(b) will be entitled for the Best Memorial Trophy.

10.3.2 In the event of a tie, the Head Administrator in consultation with the panel of Administrators shall have the discretion to determine the Team eligible for such Trophy, and such decision shall not be disputed.


11. MISCELLANEOUS

11.1 Complaint Procedure

11.1.1 If a Team believes that a violation of the Rules has occurred during a Moot, the Team shall inform the Bailiff in writing within five (5) minutes of the conclusion of that Moot. Teams must approach the Administrator with complaints if there is no Bailiff.

11.1.2 The violation and the parties involved in the violation shall be clearly described in the written notification. Teams are not allowed to approach the judges directly with regards to any violation of the Rules.

11.1.3 Failure to follow any of the procedures stipulated in this paragraph shall result in a waiver of the Team’s complaint.

11.1.4 If one or more judges believe that a violation has occurred during a Moot, he shall inform the Bailiff orally or in writing within five (5) minutes of the completion of the Moot. When possible, the matter should be brought to the Bailiff outside the attention of the other judges.

11.2 Additional and Supplementary Rules

The Organising Committee may make rules in addition and/or supplementary to the Rules in respect of any matters incidental, ancillary or supplementary thereto or concerning the conduct and administration of the Competition.

Oct 7, 2013

MOOT QUESTION

MOOT QUESTION (ENGLISH)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA
AT PUTRAJAYA
[APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
MOOT NO.      OF 2013

BETWEEN

DR. ERIK ANAKIN LAU & ANO                                                                        APPELLANTS
AND

LUNA RAIM KARIN (A MINOR)
(THROUGH ELISABETH ZIRYAB, HER MOTHER
AND LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE)                                             RESPONDENT

Background of the case

The Respondent a minor suing through her Mother and Litigation Representative, (the Plaintiff) had sued the Appellants (the Defendants) for medical negligence resulting in her blindness. The first Defendant is Dr. Raven Sparks, the medical consultant. The second Defendant is Dr. Erik Anakin Lau while the third Defendant is Pantai Medical Centre, Ayer Keroh, Melaka i.e the Hospital.

The infant Respondent, Luna Raim Karin was born at 3.25 am on 24/12/2010 at the Third Appellant. She was born at about 30 weeks gestation i.e premature, having been born about 10 weeks before her estimated date of delivery on 25/02/2011. At birth, the Respondent had slight generalized blueness with chest recession respiration indicating that she had problems with breathing. She was thus placed in an incubator and given oxygen at the rate of 5 liters per minute (1/min) into a hood around her head and a further 5 1/min into the incubator. Due to her illness, she was referred to Dr. Raven Sparks, who was an Honorary Consultant Visiting Pediatrician for the Third Defendant, by the obstetrician who delivered her. The First Defendant saw the Plaintiff later that day and from the records, she found her to be a premature infant. By then, the blueness or cyanosis had improved. Although the Respondent’s breathing was still with minimal chest recession, nevertheless, she was not grunting and was not in distress. After being satisfied that the Respondent’s condition was stable, she reduced the oxygen level to 3 1/min and thus stopped the incubator oxygen. Since the First Defendant was going on leave, the baby was handed into the Second Appellant’s (the ‘Second Defendant’) care i.e. Dr. Erik Anakin Lau. The First Defendant never since seeing or treated her again.

The Second Defendant saw the Plaintiff on 26/12/2010 at 9.00 am. The oxygen was continued at 3 1/min into the hood as the Plaintiff’s condition continued to be stable inside the incubator. On 27/12/2010 (day 3), the Plaintiff’s condition deteriorated. She had repeated apneic spells where she stopped breathing and turned blue, requiring external cardiac massage on one occasion. The incubator oxygen of 5 1/min was reverted to again. On the fourth day, 28/12/2010, she had a tinge of jaundice but was otherwise stable and the incubator oxygen was removed. Thereafter, her condition steadily improved and the oxygen was later progressively reduced and taken off completely on 03/01/2011 (day 10). She was eventually discharged on 07/02/2011. Upon discharge, the Plaintiff’s parents were not informed of the complications she had suffered or possible risks that she could face due to the oxygen therapy.

The Plaintiff’s mother started to notice something different about her infant when the Plaintiff’s eyes did not move or respond to any objects in front of her. This happened when the Plaintiff was about five months old. The Plaintiff’s parents then brought her to an Ophthalmologist, Dr. Serena Song who confirmed that the Plaintiff was suffering from retrolental fibroplasia (RLF) or Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) due to excessive oxygen. The Plaintiff is blind in both eyes till today.

The Plaintiff’s claim against the First and Second Defendants is for inter alia damages for pain and suffering due to their negligence resulting in her blindness when the Plaintiff was under their care. Her claim against the Third Defendant is also for inter alia damages negligent medical care and vicarious liability for the negligence of the First and Second Defendants by virtue of being the employer and/or principal of the First and Second Defendants since the negligence occurred during the course of the First and Second Defendants’ employment and/or consultancy with the Third Defendant.

The Trial Judge awarded the Plaintiff RM700,000.00 as general damages. The claim against the First Defendant was dismissed as she merely attended to the Plaintiff for a short time and had proved that the Plaintiff was in a stable condition under her care.

The Second and Third Defendants appeal.
The grounds of appeal are:-
a)                  They were not negligent in not alerting the Respondent’s parents at the time of discharge of the possible onset of RLF and/or ROP; and


b)                  The learned Judge had erred in ruling out the appropriate measures of standard of care for a medical practitioner.


MOOT QUESTION (BAHASA MALAYSIA)

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA
DI PUTRAJAYA
[BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN]
NO. MOOT       TAHUN 2013

DI ANTARA

DR. ERIK ANAKIN LAU DAN LAIN-LAIN                                                            PERAYU
DAN

LUNA RAIM KARIN (SEORANG KANAK-KANAK)
(MELALUI ELISABETH ZIRYAB,
IBU DAN WAKIL LITIGASINYA)                                                                            RESPONDEN

Latar belakang kes

Tuntutan Responden ('Plaintif) terhadap Perayu-Perayu (‘Defendan-Defendan), masing-masing sebagai pakar perubatan dan pihak hospital, antara lain adalah, gantirugi kerana kecuaian Defendan-Defendan yang mengakibatkan cacat penglihatan dan/atau buta terhadap Plaintif.

Plaintif adalah seorang kanak-kanak, Luna Raim Karin dilahirkan pada 3.25 pagi pada 24/12/2010 di Defendan Ketiga iaitu Pantai Ayer Keroh Medical Centre, Melaka. Beliau dilahirkan kira-kira 30 minggu kehamilan iaitu pra-matang, kira-kira 10 minggu sebelum tarikh jangkaan dilahirkan iaitu pada 25/02/2011. Di awal kelahirannya, kulit Plainitf bertukar sedikit biru serta menunjukkan bahawa dia mempunyai masalah dengan pernafasan. Oleh itu, dia telah diletakkan dalam inkubator dan diberi oksigen pada kadar 5 liter seminit (1/min) ke dalam hud sekitar kepalanya dan lagi 5 1/min ke dalam incubator tersebut.

Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif telah dirujuk kepada Dr. Raven Sparks ('Defendan Pertama') yang merupakan seorang Perunding Pelawat Pediatrik bagi Defendan Ketiga, oleh Obstetrik Plaintif. Apabila Defendan Pertama memeriksa Plaintif berdasarkan dari rekod-rekod kesihatannya, beliau mendapati Plaintif adalah seorang bayi yang tidak matang. Namun demikian, keadaan Plaintif beransur baik dan tiada terdapat usur sianosis atau kulit bertukar biru. Walaupun pernafasan Plaintif masih dalam keadaan minimum, namun, keadaan Plaintif adalah stabil dan tidak mengalami masalah pernafasan yang kritikal. Setelah berpuas hati bahawa keadaan Plaintif stabil, dia mengurangkan tahap oksigen ke 3 1/min dan menghentikan oksigen di inkubator.

Oleh kerana Defendan Pertama hendak bercuti, dia menyerahkan Plaintif di bawah jagaan Perayu Kedua ('Defendan Kedua') iaitu Dr Erik Anakin Lau. Semenjak itu, Defendan Pertama tidak pernah melihat dan/atau merawat Plaintif lagi.

Defendan Kedua memeriksa Plaintif pada 26/12/2010 jam 9.00 pagi. Oksigen diteruskan pada 3 1/min ke hud kerana keadaannya yang stabil di dalam inkubator. Pada 27/12/2010 (hari ketiga), keadaan Plaintif mula merosot. Plaintif juga mengalami apnoeic spells yang berulang kali di mana dia berhenti bernafas dan kulit bertukar biru, malah Plainitf memerlukan cardiac massage di suatu ketika.

Bantuan Oksigen kemudiannya, dimasukkan semula ke dalam inkubator pada tahap 5 1/min. Pada hari keempat, 28/12/2010, beliau mempunyai jaundice tetapi stabil dan oksigen inkubator telah dihentikan. Selepas itu, keadaan beliau semakin bertambah baik dan bantuan oksigen kemudiannya dikurangkan secara beransur-ansur dan dihentikan sepenuhnya pada 03/01/2011 (hari kesepuluh). Plaintif akhirnya dibenarkan pulang pada 07/02/2011. Pada waktu tersebut, ibu bapa Plaintif tidak dimaklumkan tentang apa-apa komplikasi dan/atau risiko yang mungkin akan dihadapi oleh Plaintif akibat daripada terapi oksigen.
Ibu Plaintif mulai mengesyaki sesuatu yang ganjil terhadap Plaintif apabila kedua belah mata Plaintif tidak memberikan sebarang reaksi terhadap apa jua benda di hadapannya Waktu itu, Plaintif berumur sekitar 2 bulan. Ibubapa Plaintif kemudiannya, membawa Plaintif berjumpa dengan seorang Ophthalmologist, Dr Serena Song yang mengesahkan bahawa Plaintif mengidap retrolental fibroplasia (RLF) atau retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) akibat daripada bantuan oksigen yang berlebihan. Kedua mata Plainitf buta sehingga ke hari ini.

Plaintif kemudiannya menuntut terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Kedua ganti rugi ke atas rasa sakit dan penderitaan (pain and suffering) dan menyebabkan kebutaan pada mata Plaintif akibat daripada kelalaian merawat Plaintif. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Ketiga pula adalah ke atas kerosakan (damages) kerana Defendan Ketiga bertanggungjawab ke atas kelalaian Defendan Pertama dan Kedua berdasarkan majikan-pekerja dan / atau sebagai perunding Defendan Ketiga semasa kejadian. Plaintif juga secara khusus menuntut terhadap Defendan Ketiga di bawah vicarious liability.

Hakim didalam perbicaraan penuh telah memutuskan bahawa Plaintif dibayar ganti rugi am sebanyak RM700,000.00. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama pula telah ditolak oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia atas alasan kerana Defendan Pertama berjaya membuktikan bahawa beliau hanya merawat Plaintif dalam tempoh yang singkat dan keadaan Plaintif adalah stabil pada waktu itu.

Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga kemudiannya membuat rayuan. Alasan-alasan rayuan daripada pihak Perayu adalah seperti berikut:-
a)                  Perayu Kedua dan Ketiga tidak lalai dalam tanggungjawab mereka untuk tidak memberi tahu dan/atau memaklumkan kepada ibubapa Responden akan kebarangkalian untuk Plaintif berhadapan risiko RLF dan / atau ROP, dan

b)                   Hakim yang bijaksana telah tersilap dan terkhilaf dalam memutuskan suatu standard of care bagi seseorang pengamal perubatan.

Oct 3, 2013

PAIRING LISTS

ENGLISH (APPELLANT V RESPONDENT)

1) Team 14 v Team 5
2) Team 4 v Team 86
3) Team 20 v Team 74
4) Team 3 v Team 65
5) Team 17 v Team 33
6) Team 38 v Team 41
7) Team 73 v Team 48
8) Team 34 v Team 28
9) Team 72 v Team 36
10) Team 40 v Team 32
11) Team 22 v Team 67
12) Team 63 v Team 31
13) Team 30 v Team 58
14) Team 44 v Team 80
15) Team 46 v team 61
16) Team 21 v Team 54
17) Team 37 v Team 64
18) Team 23 v Team 59
19) Team 26 v Team 47
20) Team 78 v Team 29
21) Team 27 v Team 68
22) Team 79 v Team 76
23) Team 92 v Team 89

BAHASA MALAYSIA (PERAYU V RESPONDEN)

1) Team 83 v Team 8
2) Team 1 v Team 57
3) Team 25 v Team 19
4) Team 87 v Team 2
5) Team 71 v Team 45
6) Team 12 v Team 7
7) Team 49 v Team 15
8) Team 16 v Team 82
9) Team 70 v Team 6
10) Team 10 v Team 81
11) Team 60 v Team 53
12) Team 24 v Team 18
13) Team 9 v Team 43
14) Team 69 v Team 85
15) Team 42 v Team 51
16) Team 75 v Team 77
17) Team 84 v Team 62
18) Team 11 v Team 56
19) Team 55 v Team 35
20) Team 39 v Team 50
21) Team 66 v Team 13
22) Team 52 v Team 88
23) Team 91 v Team 90

Sep 10, 2013

Team Registration Number


Team Number
Team Members
1
Prema Arunasalam
Hashvini Rekha Pachappan
2
Koay Han Ning
Hoon Wen Tze
3
Joycelyn Koh Xiao Yuan
Eleanor Mako Timothy
4
Koh Kok Tong
Wong Vi Vian
5
Yong Xue Hui
Lim Pei Sy
6
Heah Chee An
Koh Shien Lin
7
Felicity Sharmela Thomas
Lee Yee En
8
Tan Shwu Yunn
Chu Shir Ling
9
Lim Chiau Khoon
Lim Meng Guan
10
Ee Kim Hau
Phang Han Ying
11
Joanna Ling Chi Kuan
Charlene Constance Chai
12
Nadwa Razan bt Rosli
Rhubaica Munira bt Abdul Samat
13
Tan May Xia
Goh Chen Chie
14
Premila Subramaniam
Esther Asha Kumar 
15
Thanalakkshmi Panirselvam
Revathy Balachandran
16
Jessica Leong Mei Ling
Elizabeth Low
17
Lee Siew Ya
Chua Hui En
18
Adrian Lee Yung Khin 
Yap Han Shawn
19
Melissa binti Abdul Kadir
Kimberley Ang Phei Ling
20
Ho Yew Ching 
Tan Shir Lay 
21
Neo Chi Siong
Tan Yong Wei
22
Saw Ian Ling
Kow Sian Por
23
Chan Yeong Foong
Chua Chia Ying
24
Wong Xian Zheng
Teh Ken Wen Desiree
25
Lau Yuen Ann Alvin 
Gooi Jun Shyong
26
Priyhadharshini Soma Sundram
Geetah Chandrasekaran
27
Lim Keelyn
Regina Saw Lyn Gek
28
Chong Mean Bei
Eunice Ong Yan Qian
29
Zunaidah Binti Mohamed Sultan
Thavinteraraj A/L Sivalingam
30
Ng Pei Yee
Chong Wan Rong
31
Raja Nur Nabilah Huda Binti Raja Ramle
Huda Hazrina Binti Hamzah
32
 Muhammad Ikram Bin Hamzah
Amanda Seow Mei Wen
33
Kamiini a/p Muniandy
Kavitha a/p Maniam
34
Chen Vi Vian
Ang Wan Min
35
Chaveewan phattayaphan
Shantini Raj Seluarajah
36
Darshini Munusamy
Sharmela Tamilmani
37
Lai Xue Yee
Lee Yiap Shi
38
Seow Yi Wen
Andriea Bastiam
39
Angela Bong Yoke May
Yong Yoke Ching
40
Ow Ji Jim          
Neoh Boon Hee      
41
Ruwaydah Binti Mohd Raziff
Ervin Frankie
42
Yap Wen Xue
 Tan Teck Chuan
43
Wee Yeong Kang
Reagan Moo Fei Liq 
44
Leon Tan Yew Keong
Hanidar Binti Abdul Ghani 
45
Aaron Mark Pius
Sia Yi Ting
46
Lim Sze Chuen
Tong Kah Mun
47
Lee Yan Xi
Lee Shin Min
48
Gary Au Kar Meng
Kelly Lye Pey Jiun
49
Thivia A/P Murugiah
Nanthini A/P Marutheappan
50
Rebecca Pang Huan-Ying
Lim Khai Ying
51
Tharma Kumar Jaya Kumar
Valentina Lai Yuan Fen
52
Uthaya Rekha A/P Krishnasamy
Fittria Nurdawin Bt Modm Yusof
53
Ee Pei Ying
Tan Yan Jun
54
Boon Mei Yen
Low Shi Min
55
Mohammad Aqmal Bin Abu Bakar
Fira Alaiia Bt Ahmad Faizel
56
Chew Yiting
Teo Ren Ai
57
Lim Kim Lai
Liaw Ying-Qi
58
Tee Xin Ran
Brindta a/p Manian
59
Ng Pik Yue
Divya Dharshine
60
Lim Kuan
Heng Cheng Yeong
61
Wong Pik Kee
Deepa Sangaran
62
Yeow Chee Koon
Goh Sze Huat
63
Boey Mok Bow Yin
Tan Peck Chin
64
Chan Kah Chun
Ik Chu Jek
65
Ng Jing Hao
Ng Yu He
66
Huam Hooi Ming
Tan Phei Jean
67
Mohammad Emir Feizal b. Mohd Fakhrunnasri
Nur Fariza Fatihah bt. Denan
68
Yap Keen Leong
Chee Yik Wai
69
Ahmad Hazwan Bin Hamdan
Muhammad Toriq Bin Abd Manaf
70
Ilya Qistina Binti Abdul Harith
Chloe Joanna Ellron
71
Amira Binti Mohamad Noor
Nadiah Syazwani Binti Nordin
72
Sern Wei Tze
Lee Siew Ying
73
Chai Chun Khiong
Tan Yung Wei
74
Thong Chee Whei
Dia Sze Sze
75
Nur Dayana Arifa bt Mohammad
Nur Fiona bt Mohd Ali
76
Farha Eisyeerah binti Mohd Fauzee
Mariah Syahirah binti Mazlan
77
Ong Yi Ying
Wee Kuei Ping
78
Orpheus M. Modili
Amar Mokhsin Bin Md Sharon
79
Petrene Susanna Peter
Debra Allison Beaty 
80
Jason Tan Ka Yan
Adrian Jayaraj Paul
81
Kan Da Xing
Ang Yuan Yee
82
Kalaiarasan s/o Rasadurai
Kevin Richard Nathan
83
Muhammad Nazrin Seth
Mohamad Ariff Syukri bin Abd Rahman
84
Olivia Constance Nicholas
Nur Mustaqeem bin Aziz
85
Adhwa Syuhadah Azhar
Intan Nurelanie Omar
86
Wan Ahmad Afiq Noordin b Wan Mohd Nasserudin
Karen Loi Min Hui
87
Atasha Binti Mohamed Noor
Rozianna Anwar
88
Shalini Gunasaigran 
Olinda Josephine Nicholas
89
Illera Ak Kimal
90
Shafie Amirah bt Zaini
Vivien Anne Anak Luang
91
Yap Siau Chein
Chau Yen Shen
92
Nanneri nanggai A/P Vengadasan