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 22, 2013
Oct 14, 2013
STRUCTURE OF MEMORIAL
SCHEDULE 1 – Rule 7.3
STRUCTURE OF MEMORIAL
1. Parts of the Memorial
1.1 The
Memorial must contain the following parts, and only the following parts:
a) Cover
Page;
b) Contents
i)
Competition Problem;
ii) Skeleton of
submission;
-Lead counsel’s argument/submission
-Co-Counsel Argument;
iv) List of
Authorities;
v) Bundle of
Authorities;
1.2 The Memorial
must be paginated, starting from the Competition Problem to the last page of
the Bundle of Authorities.
1.3 The Appellant’s
Memorial must be bound in red, whereas the Respondent’s Memorial must be bound
in blue.
1.4 Names of
counsels may not appear on or within the Memorial. Signature pages are
prohibited as well.
1.5 The Memorial
must be in accordance with the format hereinafter shown.
2. Cover Page
2.1 Each Memorial
must bear on its cover only the following:
a)
the name of the court;
b)
the moot number (pairing number) and year of the
Competition;
c)
the name and description of the parties to the
action;
d)
the title of the document (i.e.
Applicant/Appellant’s Memorial or Respondent’s Memorial)
3. Competition Problem
3.1 Competition
Problem means the official competition question for the Preliminary Rounds and
the Advanced Round as supplemented or corrected by any official Problem
Clarifications or corrections.
4. Argument
4.1 It is important
that counsel must prepare and submit their Argument after stating the ground of
appeal.
4.2 Each
Argument must contain:
a)
The Law;
b)
Application of the Law;
c)
Conclusion;
4.3 Arguments
must be elaborated in order to help the judges to understand it further.
4.4 Each
Argument must not exceed eight (8) pages (12 point font, Times New Roman) in
length.
5. List
of Authorities
5.1 A “List of
Authorities” must be included in each Record.
5.2.The “List of Authorities” must list all authorities
cited in each Argument.
6. Bundle of Authorities
6.1 Bundle of
Authorities must contain copies of authorities cited in each Argument.
6.2 Documents
obtained from online sources must be reduced to hardcopy, as much as possible
in PDF format.
FORMAT 1 - COVER PAGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF
2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. ….APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENT
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
SUMMONS NO: 52-108 OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. …PLAINTIFF
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT
APPELLANT’S MEMORIAL
FORMAT 2 – COMPETITION PROBLEM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
APPEAL CIVIL NO. OF
2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN. BHD. ….APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENTS
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
SUMMONS NO: 52-108 OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIFF
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT
COMPETITION PROBLEM
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT
MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA
SUIT NUM: 52 (civil
code)-108 (court’s file ref)-2012 (year)
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN
BHD........................................................PLAINTIFF
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD
……………………………….DEFENDANT
Rahmat Bulat Sdn. Bhd (RB),
a housing developer signed a sale and purchase agreement (“the agreement”) with
Rajesh Sinar Sdn. Bhd. (RS). In the agreement signed by both parties on 31
March 2010, RS agreed to sell and RB agreed to purchase 1140.40 acres of land
in Mukim Melaka Tengah in the state of Melaka for a price of RM315,000.000.
After payment of the deposit (10%) and three 3 instalments amounting to
RM83,500 towards the purchase price, in a few months time RB informed RS that
they had failed to obtain a loan to pay the balance of the purchase price from
any financial institution. RB also argued that they had been lawfully
discharged from further performance of the agreement. RS insisted on receiving
the full balance of the purchase price.
RB then commenced
proceedings in the High Court for a declaration that the contract had been
frustrated and consequently RB was discharged from its obligation to perform
the contract. RB also sought refund of all monies paid under the contract. RS
filed a counter-claim and sought for an order of specific performance of the
contract, compensation or damages in addition to the order of specific
performance or alternatively, damages for breach of the contract in lieu of
specific performance. The learned judge dismissed RB's claims with costs. The
learned judge, however, did not make an order for specific performance but in
lieu, he awarded RS damages under cl 10.1 of the agreement. which read as
follows:
10.1Default By The Purchaser
In the event of any breach
by the purchaser of any of the provisions of this agreement the vendor shall
(subject to and after the expiry of a notice in writing to the purchaser
requiring the purchaser to remedy such breach(es) within thirty (30) days from
the date thereof provided always that such notice is only necessary if the
breach(es) does/do not involve the payment of the second instalment or the
third instalment) be entitled to forfeit the first instalment and the sum
equivalent to eleven per centum (11%) per annum on the third instalment or
portion thereof remaining unpaid/outstanding calculated from the due date until
the date of such forfeiture by way of agreed liquidated damages and the
vendor's solicitors shall refund to the purchaser all other monies paid by the
purchaser towards the purchase of the land (free of interest) in exchange for
the titles whereupon this agreement shall terminate and cease to be of any
further effect but without prejudice to any right which either party may be
entitled to against the other party in respect of any antecedent breach of this
agreement.
The Learned Judge ordered
the forfeiture of the deposit and a further sum of equivalent to 11%pa on the
third instalment. RB challenged the trial judge's decision on the issues of
frustration of the contract, the issue of RS's claims in the pleadings and the
agreed liquidated damages under clause 10.1 of the agreement,
RB appealed on the grounds
that:
i. the failure to obtain a loan to pay the balance
of the purchase price due to the liquidity problem and Bank Negara ruling on
lending to the broad property Sector was a supervening event beyond the control
of the appellant.
ii. the liquidated damages awarded under cl 10.1 of
the agreement is extravagant, exorbitant and unconscionable.
FORMAT 3 – ARGUMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
CIVIL APPEAL NUM. OF
2012 (kindly state the num of appeal court starting with code civil 12-….-….)
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ...APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH
SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDENT
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
SUIT NUM : 52-108-2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIFF
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT
SKELETON OF SUBMISSION
LEAD COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION
I.
GROUND
OF SUBMISSION
II.
SUBMISSIONS
Main Argument which consists of:
1. Law
2. Application
of Law
3. Conclusion
III.
CLOSING SUBMISSION
CO-COUNSEL’S ARGUMENT/SUBMISSION
I. GROUND OF SUBMISSION
I.
SUBMISSIONS
Main Argument which consists of:
1. Law
2. Application
of Law
3. Conclusion
III. CLOSING SUBMISSION
DATED THIS DAY OF 2012
FORMAT 4 – LIST OF AUTHORITIES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT MALACCA
CIVIL APPEAL NUM:
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ….APPELLANT
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ..RESPONDENT
(IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT MALACCA
IN THE STATE OF MALACCA, MALAYSIA
CIVIL NO: 58-108 OF 2012
BETWEEN
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIFF
AND
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDANT
________________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT’S LIST OF AUTHORITIES
1. Government of Malaysia v Loh Wai Kong
[1979] 2 MLJ 33 (sample only)
2. Article
11(4) Federal Constitution 1957 (sample only)
DATED THIS DAY OF 2012
BM Moot
FORMAT 1 – MUKA DEPAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ….PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN
DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 58-108TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDAN
MEMORIAL PERAYU
FORMAT 2 – SOALAN PERTANDINGAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ….PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN
DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 58-108TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDAN
________________________________________________________________________
SOALAN PERTANDINGAN
Rahmat Bulat Sdn. Bhd (RB),
pemaju perumahan telah memeterai perjanjian jual beli ("Perjanjian
tersebut") dengan Rajesh Sinar Sdn. Bhd. (RS). Di dalam Perjanjian
tersebut yang ditandatangani oleh kedua-dua pihak pada 31 Mac 2010, RS
bersetuju untuk menjual dan RB bersetuju untuk membeli 1140,40 ekar tanah di
Mukim Melaka Tengah di negeri Melaka dengan harga RM315, 000,000. Selepas
pembayaran deposit (10%) dan tiga (3) kali ansuran berjumlah RM83,500 daripada
harga belian, dalam beberapa bulan kemudiannya RB memaklumkan kepada RS bahawa
mereka telah gagal untuk mendapatkan pinjaman untuk membayar baki harga belian
dari mana-mana institusi kewangan. RB juga menegaskan bahawa mereka telah
dilepaskan daripada meneruskan perjanjian tersebut secara sah. RS berkeras
untuk mendapatkan baki penuh harga
belian tersebut.
RB kemudiannya memulakan
prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi untuk suatu perisytiharan bahawa kontrak tersebut
telah terganggu (frustrasi) dan oleh sebab itu RB telah terlepas daripada
kewajipan untuk melaksanakan kontrak tersebut. RB juga meminta bayaran balik
kesemua wang yang dibayar di bawah kontrak tersebut. RS memfailkan tuntutan
balas dan memohon untuk mendapatkan suatu perintah pelaksanaan spesifik
kontrak, pampasan atau ganti rugi sebagai tambahan kepada perintah pelaksanaan
spesifik atau secara alternatif, ganti rugi kerana pelanggaran kontrak dalam
gantian pelaksanaan spesifik. Hakim yang bijaksana menolak tuntutan RB dengan
kos. Hakim yang bijaksana, bagaimanapun, tidak memberi perintah pelaksanaan
spesifik tetapi sebagai ganti, beliau mengawardkan pampasan/ gantirugi kepada
RS di bawah klausa 10.1 perjanjian tersebut seperti berikut:
10.1
Kegagalan di Pihak Pembeli
Sekiranya mana-mana
pelanggaran oleh pembeli apa-apa peruntukan perjanjian ini penjual hendaklah
(tertakluk kepada dan selepas tamat notis secara bertulis kepada pembeli yang
memerlukan pembeli untuk membetulkan pelanggaran itu dalam tempoh tiga puluh
(30) hari dari tarikh daripadanya dengan syarat bahawa notis sedemikian hanya
perlu jika pelanggaran tidak melibatkan pembayaran ansuran kedua atau ansuran
ketiga) berhak untuk membatalkan ansuran pertama dan jumlah yang bersamaan
kepada sebelas peratus (11%) setahun atas ansuran yang ketiga atau sebahagian
daripadanya yang belum dibayar / terkumpul dikira dari tarikh tamat kerana
sehingga tarikh yang pelucuthakan itu dengan bayaran pampasan/gantirugi yang
dipersetujui dan peguamcara penjual hendaklah memulangkan kepada pembeli semua
wang lain yang dibayar oleh pembeli terhadap pembelian tanah (tanpa faedah)
dalam pertukaran hakmilik di mana perjanjian ini adalah tamat dan terhenti
daripada apa-apa kesan lagi tetapi tanpa prejudis terhadap hak yang boleh
didapati oleh mana-mana pihak terhadap pihak lain berkenaan dengan apa-apa yg
melanggar perjanjian ini.
Hakim yang bijaksana
memerintahkan pelucuthakan deposit dan jumlah bersamaan dengan 11% setahun ke
atas ansuran ketiga. RB merayu terhadap keputusan hakim perbicaraan mengenai
isu-isu frustrasi kontrak, isu tuntutan RS dalam pliding dan persetujuan ganti
rugi di bawah klausa 10.1 fasal perjanjian itu,
RB merayu atas alasan
bahawa:
i. kegagalan untuk
mendapatkan pinjaman untuk membayar baki harga belian kerana masalah kecairan
dan peraturan Bank Negara ke atas pinjaman kepada sektor harta benda yang luas
adalah supervening (gangguan) luar kawalan perayu.
ii. ganti rugi yang
diawardkan di bawah klausa 10.1 perjanjian itu adalah melampaui batas, terlalu
tinggi dan tidak berpatutan.
FORMAT 3 –HUJAHAN PEGUAM
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ….PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN
DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 58-108TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDAN
RANGKA HUJAHAN PERAYU
HUJAHAN PEGUAM PERTAMA
I.
ALASAN
HUJAHAN
I.
HUJAHAN
Hujahan Utama seharusnya merangkumi:
1. Undang-undang
2. Aplikasi
undang-undang berkenaan
3. Kesimpulan
III. HUJAHAN PENUTUP
HUJAHAN PEGUAM KEDUA
I. ALASAN HUJAHAN
I.
HUJAHAN
Hujahan Utama seharusnya merangkumi:
1. Undang-undang
2. Aplikasi
undang-undang berkenaan
3. Kesimpulan
III. HUJAHAN PENUTUP
BERTARIKH PADA HARIBULAN 2012
FORMAT 4 – SENARAI AUTORITI
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MELAKA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. TAHUN
2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD ….PERAYU
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD ...RESPONDEN
(DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN
DI MELAKA
DALAM NEGERI MELAKA,
MALAYSIA
GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 58-108TAHUN 2012
ANTARA
RAHMAT BULAT SDN BHD …PLAINTIF
DAN
RAJESH SINAR SDN BHD …DEFENDAN
________________________________________________________________________
SENARAI OTORITI PERAYU
1. Government of Malaysia lwn Loh Wai Kong [1979] 2 MLJ 33 (Contoh)
2. Fasal
11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan 1957 (Contoh)
BERTARIKH PADA
HARIBULAN 2012
COURT ATTIRE FOR MOOTERS
COURT
ATTIRE FOR MOOTERS
§ For men: a dark (preferably black) jacket, dark trousers,
white or light pastel shirt with a tie (should be of sober colour) and dark
shoes. Striped trousers accepted.
Note:
Coloured turban for Sikhs is allowed.
§ For ladies: a dark (preferably black) jacket, white long-sleeved
blouse, black/dark skirt or dark trousers, black/dark court shoes.
Please note the following:
· Patterned attire: No floral or any patterned print allowed.
· Jewellery/accessories: The minimum and as unobtrusive and sparing as
possible. Avoid large, long, chunky, colourful accessories.
· Make-up: Sparing.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)