Publication of Question 3 (Finals)

PERINGKAT AKHIR

Harta Intelek/ Kontrak: Mahkamah Rayuan

USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd. v Car Secure Sdn. Bhd.


Kedua-dua syarikat USA1 Co dan USA3 Co yang diperbadankan di Amerika Syarikat adalah pemilik hak harta intelek alat ‘Stopthief’. Plaintif ketiga MY2 Sdn Bhd diperbadankan di Malaysia untuk memasarkan alat ‘Stoptheif’ di Malaysia.

Kedua-dua plaintif (USA1 Co dan USA3) menuntut bahawa alat Car Secure Sdn Bhd (‘Stopjack’) adalah terbitan dari alat ‘Stoptheif’ mereka.

Pada 1 April 1995 syarikat USA3 Co telah memasuki satu perjanjian lesen (perjanjian lesen) dengan Syarikat Bermuda yang mana Encik Tan, adalah Pengarah. Kemudian Encik Tan telah meletakkan jawatan di Syarikat Bermuda dan menjadi pengarah di Car Secure Sdn Bhd.

Berikutan dari itu, informasi rahsia berkaitan dengan alat ‘Stoptheif’ telah diberikan kepada Encik Bala, Pengarah Urusan (CEO) Car Secure Sdn Bhd dan satu perjanjian Rahsia (perjanjian rahsia) telah ditandatangani di antara Encik Tan dan Car Secure Sdn Bhd. Setelah itu, Encik Tan meletak jawatan dari Car Secure Sdn Bhd.

Pada 27 November 1995, MY2 Sdn Bhd melancarkan alat ‘Stoptheif’ di seluruh Malaysia melalui publisiti dan promosi yang hebat. Mereka talah menyerahkan permohonan mereka untuk perlindungan patent kepada MyIPO pada 1 November 1995.

Pada 30 November 1995, ‘Stopjack’ telah dilancarkan oleh Car Secure Sdn Bhd. di Malaysia.

MY2 Sdn Bhd telah menerima surat dari Car Secure Sdn Bhd. yang mana mereka menyatakan bahawa mereka telah membuat alat ‘Stopjack’ lebih dahulu dan meminta penggunaan cap dagangan ‘Stoptheif’ dihentikan.

Plaintif-plaintif (USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd.) telah menyaman Car Secure Sdn Bhd kerana melanggar hak cipta dan memohon remedi-remedi berikut:-

(i) gantirugi bagi perlanggaran hak cipta dan ‘passing off’
(ii) gantirugi bagi mendapatkan informasi daripada Plaintif-plaintif secara penipuan dan kemudiannya menggunakan informasi tersebut untuk membina produk yang serupa atau sama dengan produk plaintif-plaintif dan juga menggunakan cap dagangan yang sama dengan cap dagangan plaintif; dan
(iii) gantirugi bagi konversyen (conversion)


Di Mahkamah Tinggi, keputusan yang diberikan menyebelahi pihak defenden berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan berikut:

(i) bahawa pihak plaintif tiada apa-apa untuk dilindungi kerana mereka tidak mempunyai patent untuk alat ‘Stoptheif’ di Malaysia dan dengan itu tiada apa untuk dilindungi melalui tuntutan ‘passing off’.
(ii) Bahawa informasi yang didapati sebelum perlaksanaan perjanjian rahsia tidak diberikan di atas dasar obligasi rahsia.
(iii) Bahawa plaintif kedua hanyalah pengedar dan tidak mempunyai hak kepunyaan untuk membuat tuntutan untuk ‘passing off’.
(iv) Alasan tuntutan konversyen bagi hak-hak harta intelek telah disalahertikan yang mana ianya tidak berkaitan dengan hal ‘ethereal’ atau ‘ephemeral’ seperti informasi; dan
(v) Bukti kerosakan sebenar adalah elemen yang perlu semasa perbicaraan dan kemungkinan berlaku kerosakan tersebut mencukupi hanya di dalam kes permohonan interim untuk injuksi quia timet

Plaintif kini merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi.


Finals

Intellectual Property / Contract : In the Court of Appeal

USA 1 Co., USA3 Co. & MY2 Sdn. Bhd. v Car Secure Sdn. Bhd.


USA1 Company and USA3 company both companies incorporated in USA were the owner of the intellectual property rights in the Stopthief Device. The second plaintiff MY2 Sdn Bhd was incorporated in Malaysia to market the Stopthief device in Malaysia.

Both the plaintiffs (USA1 and USA3 company) claimed that Car-Secure Sdn Bhd’s device ('Stopjack') was derived from their Stopthief device.


USA3 company had on 1st April 1995 entered into a licence agreement ('licence agreement') with Bermuda Company of which the Mr. Tan, was a director. Subsequently Mr Tan resigned from Bermuda company and became a director of Car-Secure Shd Bhd.

Pursuant to this, confidential information pertaining to the Stopthief device was provided to one Mr Bala, the CEO of Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. & a Confidentiality agreement ('confidentiality agreement') was signed between Mr. Tan and Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. Thereafter, Mr Tan resigned from Car- Secure Sdn Bhd.

On 27 November 1995, MY2 Sdn. Bhd. launched the 'Stopthief' device throughout Malaysia amidst heavy publicity and promotions. They had submitted their application for patent protection to MyIPO on 1 Nov. 1995.

On 30th November 1995, 'Stopjack' was launched by Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. in Malaysia.

Subsequently, MY2 Sdn Bhd received a letter from Car Secure Sdn Bhd who claimed to have developed the ‘Stopjack’ device earlier and demanded the cessation of the use of the trade mark 'Stopthief'.

The plaintiffs (USA1 and USA3 and MY2 Sdn Bhd ) immediately sued Car Secure Sdn. Bhd. for breach of copyright claiming the following remedies :-


(i) damages for breach of copyright and ‘passing off ’

(iii) damages for fraudulently obtaining information from the Plaintiffs and thereafter utilising the information to manufacture a product identical or similar to the plaintiffs' product and by using a trade mark similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark; and

(iv) damages in conversion.

In the High Court judgment was given in favour of the Defendant on the following grounds:-

(i) that the plaintiffs had nothing to protect because they did not have any patent for the Stopthief device in Malaysia and hence they had nothing to protect by way of an action based on ‘passing – off ‘ ;

(ii) the information imparted prior to the execution of the confidentiality agreement was not imparted under any obligation of confidence;

(iii)the second plaintiff is a mere distributor and cannot acquire any proprietary rights sufficient to sustain an action in passing off;

(iv) the cause of action of conversion in respect of intellectual property rights is misconceived as it does not relate to ethereal or ephemeral matter such as information; and

(v) proof of actual damage is a necessary element at trial and only in the case of an interim application for a quia timet injunction would the likelihood of damage suffice.


The Plaintiffs now appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

Publication of Questions 2 (Semi-finals)

SEPARUH AKHIR

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH:- MAHKAMAH RAYUAN

Puffina v PP

Puffina telah mengenali Rokok selama sepuluh tahun. Kedua-dua adalah penagih dadah. Di dalam beberapa keadaan Dan, abang Puffina, telah membekalkan heroin kepada Puffina tetapi tidak pernah menyertai didalam perbuatan menyuntik dadah tersebut. Rokok takut kepada jarum dan sebelum ini , biasanya Puffina yang menyuntik heroin untuk Rokok. Tiga bulan lepas, Rokok bertemu dan menjalinkan hubungan dengan Setia yang menentang tabiat Rokok mengambil dadah . Setia memberi kata dua: samada berhenti mengambil dadah atau putuskan hubungan mereka. Rokok memberitahu Puffina yang dia tidak mahu apa-apa hubungan lagi dengan Puffina dan ingin mendapatkan khidmat kaunseling. Puffina mencadangkan kepada Rokok untuk menghisap dadah untuk kali terakhir bersamanya. Dan menyediakan heroin dan Rokok berjumpa Puffina di flatnya tetapi Rokok membuat keputusan untuk tidak meneruskannya. Puffina memujuk beliau dengan menyatakan heroin itu jenis yang bagus dan akan memberikan mereka keseronokan. Rokok bersetuju, tetapi ada sedikit terkilan. Puffina menjadi tidak sabar dan memberitahu Rokok yang dia akan meninggalkan penyuntik tersebut dengan Rokok sementara beliau keluar mendapatkan cuka. Sebelum keluar beliau berkata: “Jadilah lelaki sejati!” Rokok cuak, tetapi melihatkan heroin tersebut, beliau teruja dan menyuntik dirinya. Heroin tersebut telah tercemar dan akhirnya Rokok meninggal dunia. Puffina didakwa membunuh di bawah seksyen 299 Kanun Jenayah, yang mana pihak pendakwa telah membuktikan berdasarkan perbuatan yang melanggar undang-undang dan berbahaya yang menyebabkan kematian. Puffina didapati bersalah di Mahkamah Tinggi oleh Garang J .

Puffina kini merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap pensabitan dan hukuman atas alasan-alasan berikut:-

1. Pihak Pendakwa gagal untuk melepaskan beban pembuktian iaitu membuktikan kes mereka melampaui keraguan dan elemen niat untuk menyebabkan kematian atau mendatangkan kecederaan terhadap si Mati. Oleh itu Hakim yang bijaksana telah silap di dalam mendapati tertuduh bersalah.
2. Hakim perbicaraan telah gagal untuk melihat elemen persetujuan (consent) di pihak Rokok
3. Hakim perbicaraan gagal untuk mengambilkira peruntukan seksyen 87 Kanun Jenayah di mana perbuatan tersebut adalah tanpa niat dan tanpa pengetahuan akan menyebabkan kematian atau mendatangkan kecederaan dan telah dibuat atas kerelaan dan disengajakan oleh si Mati dan perbuatan menyuntik diri sendiri telah melepaskan tertuduh dari liabiliti di atas kematian tersebut.
4. Hakim perbicaraan gagal mengabilkira peruntukan seksyen 304 Kanun Jenayah kecuaian mengakibatkan kematian yang tidak termasuk di bawah membunuh atau membunuh tanpa niat.

Semi – Finals

Criminal Law:- In the Court of Appeal

Puffina v PP

Puffina had known Rokok for ten years. Both were heroin addicts. On previous occasions Dan, Puffina’s brother, supplied Puffina with the heroin but never participated in injecting the drugs. Rokok was scared of needles and in the past, the normal practice was for Puffina to inject Rokok with the heroin. Three months ago Rokok met and formed a relationship with Setia who disapproves of his drug habit. She gave him an ultimatum: either he must give up drug use or their friendship must finish. Rokok told Puffina that he wanted no more to do with her and that he was going to seek drug ounseling. Puffina suggested that Rokok go on one last ‘trip’ with her. Dan provided the heroin and Rokok met Puffina in her flat but decided that he could not go through with it. Puffina persuaded him that it was a particularly good batch of heroin and that it would give them a good ‘trip’ to go out on. Rokok agreed, but with considerable reluctance. Puffina became impatient and told Rokok that she would leave the syringe with him while she went out to get some cider. Her parting shot was: “Be a man!” as she left the flat. Rokok hesitated, but the sight of the heroin overwhelmed him and he injected himself. The heroin was in fact contaminated and Rokok died as a result. Puffina was charged with culpable homicide under s. 299 Penal Code, which the prosecution sought to prove on the basis of an unlawful and dangerous act which caused death. Puffina was found guilty in the High Court by Garang J.

Puffina is now appealing to Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence on the following grounds that:-

1. the Prosecution failed to discharge their evidential burden i.e. prove beyond reasonable doubt their case and the element of intention to cause death or bodily injury to the Deceased. Hence the Judge has erred in law in finding the accused guilty.

2. the trial judge failed to consider the element of consent on the part of Rokok

3. the trial judge failed to take into account the provisions of s. 87 of the Penal Code where the act was not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt and was done by the deceased’s own free, deliberate and informed act of self-injection which relieved the accused of liability for the death.

3. the trial judge failed to take into account the provisions of s. 304 of the Penal Code for causing death by negligence which does not amount to murder or manslaughter

Publication of Questions 1 (Prelims)

Peringkat Awal

TORT:- Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan

Jiran lwn. Pekebun dan Slaughter Sdn Bhd


Pekebun dan Jiran merupakan jiran dan taman mereka dipisahkan oleh pagar kayu. Di taman Pekebun terdapat serumpun bunga-bungaan yang ditanam di tepi pagar tersebut. Sementara itu, Jiran menanam sayur-sayuran di tepi pagar tamannya. Dalam usaha menghapuskan serangga perosak tanaman, Pekebun telah membeli racun rumpai yang berkualiti iaitu ‘Slaughter’. Pada botol racun tersebut tertera bahawa ‘Slaughter’ adalah beracun kepada manusia dan ditulis dengan terang “Sila cuci tangan dengan bersih selepas menggunakannya.”

Pekebun menyembur racun ‘Slaughter’ ke rumpun bunga-bungaannya dengan banyak. Walau bagaimanapun, pada hari yang sama, hujan telah turun dan seterusnya mengalirkan sebahagian daripada racun yang terdapat di bawah pagar kayu tersebut kepada batas sayuran Jiran. Namun, daun salad yang ditanam di kebun Jiran tidak menunjukkan sebarang tanda kerosakan. Sebahagian daripada daun salad itu kemudiannya telah dimakan oleh ahli keluarga Jiran pada petang hari tersebut. Pada keesokan harinya, anak lelaki Jiran yang berumur 6 tahun, Micheal, telah mengadu sakit perut dan diserang demam panas dan kemudiannya dimasukkan ke hospital. Bukti perubatan telah menunjukkan bahawa penyebab kepada demam tersebut ialah racun rumpai tersebut.

Jiran telah memfailkan saman bagi pihak Micheal terhadap Pekebun berdasarkan peraturan di dalam kes Rylands v Fletcher dan juga terhadap Slaughter Sdn Bhd sebagai pengilang atau pembuat racun rumpai tersebut.

Di peringkat yang pertama Hakim J. telah memutuskan bahawa saman ke atas Pekebun gagal kerana penggunaan racun rumpai adalah penggunaan lazim (natural use) ke atas tanah dan peraturan dalam Rylands v Fletcher tidak boleh digunakan untuk mendapatkan gantirugi terhadap kecederaan diri (personal injury). Seterusnya, Hakim J juga memutuskan bahawa Slaughter Sdn Bhd telah memberikan amaran yang secukupnya kepada pengguna seperti yang tertera pada labelnya. Oleh yang demikian, tiada kes boleh disabitkan terhadap pengilang tersebut. Jiran telah diberikan keizinan untuk merayu. Jiran memutuskan untuk tidak meneruskan tuntutan terhadap Slaughter Sdn Bhd tetapi merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap Pekebun berdasarkan sebab-sebab yang berikut:-

1) Penggunaan racun rumpai tersebut bukan merupakan penggunaan lazim ke atas tanah Pekebun.
2) Peraturan dalam kes Rylands v Fletcher boleh digunakan untuk mendapatkan gantirugi terhadap kecederaan diri.

Preliminary Round

TORT:- In the Court of Appeal

Jiran v Pekebun

Pekebun and Jiran are neighbours with a wooden fence separating their gardens. In Pekebun’ garden there are flower beds adjacent to the fence while Jiran grows vegetables adjacent to the fence in his garden. In an attempt to eradicate the weed in his flower beds, Pekebun purchased a powerful weedkiller called ‘Slaughter’. Warnings on the canister stated that ‘Slaughter’ was poisonous to humans and also clearly stated "Wash hands thoroughly after use".
Pekebun sprayed ‘Slaughter’ liberally on his flower beds. However, later that day, rain washed some of the weedkiller under the fence onto Jiran’s vegetable patch. A crop of lettuce growing there showed no visible signs of damage. Some of the lettuce was eaten by the Jiran family that evening. The next day Jiran’s six year-old son, Michael, began to complain of stomach pains and was seriously ill and admitted into hospital. The medical evidence conclusively traced the cause of the illness to the weedkiller.
Jiran brought an action on Michael’s behalf against Pekebun based on the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher and Slaughter Sdn. Bhd. as the manufacturers of the weedkiller.
At first instance Hakim J. held that the claim against Pekebun failed on the grounds that the use of the weedkiller was a natural use of the land and that the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher could not be used to obtain damages for personal injury. Secondly he found that Slaughter Sdn. Bhd. had issued sufficient warning on its label and therefore there was no sustainable action against the manufacturer. Jiran was granted leave to appeal. Jiran decided not to pursue the claim against Slaughter Sdn. Bhd. but appeals to the Court of Appeal against Pekebun on the following grounds:
1. The use of the weedkiller was a non-natural use of Pekebun’ land.
2. The rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher could be used to obtain damages for personal injury.

Publication of Video and Pairing List

MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/09

The official drawing of lots

Thank you for watching the above video.


The details of the event were as follow:
Date: 17 October 2008
Venue: FSER 5021
Time: 2.30 pm

The drawing of lots was conducted by Mr. Tay Eng Siang, administered by Madam Gita Radakrishna and Miss Wong Jing En. The event was prepared by Alan Kang Wei Luen, Tengku Alina bt Tengku Mohamed Fauzi and Teo Guan Seng. It was held by Tan Yen Siang, Teng PeckYin, Chong Kah Yan, Andrew Law Ching Hui, and Tee Chor Wai.

Publication of pairing list

BM version
(Appellant v Respondent)
Pair 1 (12 v 65)
Pair 2 (45 v 67)
Pair 3 (62 v 47)
Pair 4 (3 v 69)
Pair 5 (39 v 41)
Pair 6 (54 v 49)
Pair 7 (15 v 34)
Pair 8 ( 56 v 59)
Pair 9 (44 v 60)
Pair 10 (55 v 5)
Pair 11 (16 v 25)
Pair 12 (13 v 31)
Pair 13 (40 v 7)
Pair 14 (30 v 37)
Pair 15 (8 v 48)
Pair 16 (23 v 63)
Pair 17 (10 v 27)
Pair 18 (64 v 22)

BI version
(Appellant v Respondent)
Pair 1 (11 v 9)
Pair 2 (20 v 29)
Pair 3 (46 v 21)
Pair 4 (14 v 17)
Pair 5 (19 v 26)
Pair 6 (58 v 2)
Pair 7 (1 v 4)
Pair 8 (43 v 70)
Pair 9 (61 v 50)
Pair 10 (53 v 52)
Pair 11 (28 v 68)
Pair 12 (57 v 33)
Pair 13 (38 v 42)
Pair 14 (24 v 18)
Pair 15 (66 v 35)
Pair 16 (32 v 6)
Pair 17 (51 v 36)

Official Timetable for MMU Law Moot Competition 08/09

Official Timetable for MMU Law Moot Competition 2008/2009


Trimester 1
17 October 2008 ------------Draw Lots

22 October 2008 ------------Publication of Video

24 October 2008 ------------Publication of Pairing List

30 October 2008------------ Publication of Questions

Trimester 3
4 February 2009 ------------Second Briefing of Question

9 February 2009 ------------Submit Request for Problem Clarification

12 February 2009 -----------Publication of Problem Clarification

23 February 2009 -----------Submission of Memorials to Administrator

27 February 2009 -----------Marked Memorials to be Returned

2 – 6 March 2009 -----------Preliminary Rounds

11 March 2009 --------------Request for Problem Clarification

13 March 2009 --------------Problem Clarification Given

30 March 2009 --------------Submission of Semi-Finals Memorials

3 April 2009 -----------------Return of Marked Memorials

6 April 2009 -----------------Semi Final – Bahasa Malaysia

7 April 2009 -----------------Semi Final – English Language

10 April 2009 ---------------Problem Clarification

17 April 2009 ---------------Submission of Finals Memorials

20 April 2009 ---------------Return of Marked Memorials

25 April 2009 ---------------Finals

Dear all,

I am glad to hear from all of you. Students' responses are enthusiastically overwhelming, reasonable justifications are given by most of the teams who submitted their registration late ( due to Hari Raya holiday ), which is after 3rd of october.

Hereby, the moot committee shall annouce that the registration is officially closed. I can only express regret for those who have not registered themselves within the given extended time frame. Students should have courtesy to inform the committee for their late registration. There is no exemption for postponing participation in the Law Moot Competition. Documented evidence from medical practitioners has to be shown to the committee for exemption to be considered.

Upon unanimous decision of the Moot Committee, students who submitted their registration form later than 15/10/2008, 2.30pm will be penalised. A total of 5 percent of the team's overall performance shall be deducted.

For the 9 students who have not sent in their registration form, please contact the assistant director of Law Moot Competition 2008/09, Tan Yen Siang no later than 12.00pm by tomorrow.

Failing of which, the moot committee shall have the final discretion to randomly pair up the teams. Students are required to see Madam Gita for further information.

Thank you.

Regards,
Wong Jing En
Director of Law moot 2008/09
16/10/2008, 7.48pm

Official drawing of lots will be conducted on 17 of Octorber 2008, 2.30pm at FSER 5021. Students are allowed to dropby to the venue as they wish.

The entire process will be videotaped and uploaded to ensure fairness and transparency.

The following are students who have not registered. They are required to submit the registration forms by 15 October 2008, Wednesday, 2:30pm.


1.TAN YOOK SIANG
2.MOHAMMED FAREEZ BIN MOHAMMED SALLEH
3.NALINI A/P GOPALKRISHNAN
4.JANARDHANE A/P MUNIANDY
5.FARDLIN IZREEN BTE MUSTAFAR
6.SHARIFAH TASNIM BINTI SYED AHMAD late submission (randomly paired)
7.MOHD SYAMIL BIN SAZILI @ ARIFFIN late submission (randomly paired)
8.AHMAD SHAHRIR BAHARUDDIN exempted
9.AHMAD HANAFI BIN LOP AHMAD late submission
10.MOHD AZIM BIN AZLISHAM late submission (randomly paired)
11.RAJAMBAL SUPARAMENIUM
12.PRASHANT DEV NAIR A/L BALACHANDRAN
13.NUR FARHANA BT MOHD NOOR late submission (randomly paired)
14.FARHAN AIZUDDIN BIN MD PAUDZAI late submission
15.MOHAMAD ARIF BIN JAMANI
16.AMRITA KAUR A/P GURCHARAN SINGH
17.NOR AMIRRUDDIN BIN NORDIN late submission (randomly paired)
18.VIJAYANDRA KUMAR A/L MARUTHAMUTTU late submission
19.DIANA SULAMAZRA BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN
20.NADIAH BINTI ALIMON late submission (randomly paired)
21.NUR SHAZWINA BT NORDIN
22.NURUL ADLIN BT NAZRI
23.MOHAMAD ZAIRIN B MOHAMAD ZIN
24.MUHAMMAD AMMAR AL-HAQ B AHMAD
25.AMRITPAL SINGH A/L SATVINDAR SINGH late submission

All students from Delta are registered.

Team Registration

Below are the updated list of Registered Teams.

Team 1: Norsyafiqa Bt Mazuki; Aidil Ratna Edorra Bt Suhaimin
Team 2: Yew Yuen Wah; Yap Ching Heong
Team 3: Wong Lien Lien; Toh Teng Teng
Team 4: Toby Chiang Pang Sheng; Chuah Jie Ni
Team 5: Teo Ju-Li; Rema Shangeri Mohanaraj
Team 6: Tan Yen Lin; Gan Poh Chin
Team 7: Tan Choon Hong; Chong Xianci
Team 8: Siti Solehah Bt. Daud; Nurul Iliana Bt.Ahmad Hasnin
Team 9: Siti Khadijah Bt. Zainal Rashid; Amirah Tasnim Bt. Yaakob
Team 10: Shasha a/p Kummar; Sheenalini a/p Sundaram
Team 11: Selwester Michael Dass; R. Kanthan a/l Ragunathan
Team 12: Seah Song Yan; Chu Chai Tong
Team 13: Sathiesh K. Purushothaman; Suriakala Sivalingam
Team 14: Nico Langgie Ngumbang; Yong Yen Lii
Team 15: Mohammad Khairol bin Khalid; Wan Adhila Wan Leeh
Team 16: Mohamad ‘Ammar Redzuan Mohamat Nor; Rozarina Bt. Rosli
Team 17: Leong Zhi Hong; Lee Chong Hong
Team 18: Lee Cincee; Eng Sok Yin
Team 19: Lee Chiw Poh; Ooi Chee Kin
Team 20: Latania John Masabal; Noorlydia Ahmad
Team 21: Kung Que Seng; Michael Tan Ching Hooi
Team 22: Kesinee Aiyalu a/p Parthasarathee; Andrew Yeoh Teck Keong
Team 23: Gan Su Mui; Spring Lim Shu Zhen
Team 24: Darmendira Kumar a/l T Anandan; Gan Ca Rol
Team 25: Collin Arvind Andrew; Shobana a/p A. Padmanathan
Team 26: Chuah Chen Yean; Cheong Sing Yee
Team 27: Chow Yee Fan; Lim Keat Seong
Team 28: Ching Kuan Fang; Neo Han Ying
Team 29: Calvin Chua; Lee Ren Jie
Team 30: Bindusha a/p Surendrakumar; Asra Nur Syahadah Bt. Abdul Rasid
Team 31: Adrian Tay Kien Chong; Koh Shing Ru
Team 32: Shobna D/O Sivaraman; Sushma Tiwari D/O Karam Shankar
Team 33: Yogasheelan a/l Samuagam; Shangkarananda a/l Kanan
Team 34:Shazwani Bt. Jalil; Safia Bte. Ilham
Team 35:Nanthakumar a/l Gohbal; Danaindran a/l Rajendran
Team 36:Nur Fareeza bt Muhamad Khairuddin; Mohamed Faiq Azim bin Mohamed Asri
Team 37:Emile Ezra B. Md Hussain; Dayang Nuratiqah Diyanah Bt. Awang Saifuddin
Team 38:Vooi Weng Cheong, Nick; Lai Yee Lee
Team 39:Tan Zher Rhu; Yee Chew Wei
Team 40:Lim Wei Loon; Tay Soon Chuan
Team 41:Toh Hui Ling; Cheong Siow Wei
Team 42: Amirul Ridzuan B. Hanif; Nur Diyana Bt. Ahmad Fauzi
Team 43: Catherine Ong Wei Ying; Lau Shin Yee
Team 44: Izyan Syafinaz Bt. Ahmad Haspan; Jaslina bt. Tanzil
Team 45: Eolanda Yeo Jin Huay; Jerah Teoh Yong Qiang
Team 46: Ummu Sakinah Bt. Mohd Zawawi; Aizat Zamir B. Ismail

Team 47: Khairul Fisyah Bt Mohd Fisol; Azie Farhana Bt Abu Zarin

Team 48: Lim Minyi; Chia Peak Hwa

Team 49: Sarra Abdul Rahman; Nur Afiqah bt. Zakaria

Team 50: Siti Suraya bt. Abd Razak; Muhammad Ali Redha Bin Ahmad Rashidi

Team 51: Tan Yong Koon; Gan Song Zhou

Team 52: Loh Shieh Mei; Ng Nyet Kheng

Team 53: Heng Jia Lian; Lim Hooi Nee

Team 54: Kalyani a/p Vengada Chalam; Shangeetha a/p Moorthy

Team 55: Foong Chee Chong; Lee Wen Hie

Team 56: Muhammad bin Izham; Atikah binti Mohamed Rosli
Team 57: Nur Azuren binti Mohd Othman; Nur Nadia bt Haji Ramli

Team 58: Nur Shazwina bt Nordin, Nurul Adlin bt Nazri

Team 59: Mohamad Zairin b Mohamad Zin; Muhammad Ammar Al-Haq b Ahmad

Team 60: Amrita Kaur d/o Gucharan Singh; Rajambal d/o Suparamenium

Team 61: Prashant Dev Nair a/l Bala Chandran; Mohammed Fareez b Mohammed Salleh

Team 62: Mohamad Arif b Jamani; Fadlin Izreen bt Mustafar

Team 63: Tan Yook Siang; Nalini a/p Gopalkrishanan

Team 64: Vijayandra Kumar a/l Maruthamuttu; Ahmad Hanafi b Lop Ahmad

Team 65: Philip Lee Kar Hing; Diana Sulamazra bt. Abdul Rahman

Team 66: Melanie Tan; Janardhane a/p Muniandy

Team 67: Amritpal Singh a/l Satvindar Singh, Farhan Aizuddin bin Md Paudzai

Team 68: Sharifah Tasnim binti Syed Ahmad; Mohammad Syamil bin Sazali @ Ariffin

Team 69: Mohammad Azim bin Azlisham; Nur Farhana binti Mohammad Noor

Team 70: Nadiah binti Almon; Nor Amirruddin bin Nordin

A total number of 70 teams, and 140 students have registered successfully.

PERTANDINGAN MOOT UNDANG-UNDANG UNIVERSITI MULTIMEDIA PERATURAN DAN SYARAT-SYARAT

KANDUNGAN

PERATURAN RASMI 1.0 Definisi
1.1 Tafsiran
1.2 Definisi Umum
1.3 Tafsiran


PERATURAN RASMI 2.0 Organisasi Pertandingan
2.1 Pentadbiran
2.1.1 Pengarah Pertandingan
2.1.2 Pentadbir-Pentadbir
2.2 Struktur Pertandingan


PERATURAN RASMI 3.0 Penyertaan dan Kelayakan
3.1 Kelayakan Kumpulan
3.2 Pendaftaran
3.3 Pengenalan Nombor Kumpulan
3.4 Kedukan dan Pemilihan Kumpulan
3.5 Keperluan minima bagi kelayakan ahli kumpulan
3.6 Ketidaklayakan
3.6.1 Rujukan kepada Ahli Kumpulan
3.6.2 Rujukan kepada Penyalahgunaan Bantuan dar Luar
3.6.3 Rujukan kepada penyalahgunaan Memorial dan Hujah Kumpulan Lawan
3.7 Pengenalpastian Permasalahan


PERATURAN RASMI 4.0 Hakim-hakim
4.1 Kelayakan menjadi Hakim
4.2 Komen dari Hakim-hakim


PERATURAN RASMI 5.0 Memorial
5.1 Serahan Memorial
5.2 Bahasa dalam Memorial
5.3 Format Memorial
5.4 Deskripsi dalam Memorial
5.4.1 Bahagian-bahagian dalam Memorial
5.4.2 Hujjah Pihak Pemohon
5.4.3 Muka depan
5.4.4 Indek bagi autoriti
5.4.5 Gabungan autoriti
5.4.6 Kenyataan fakta
5.4.7 Ringkasan Permohonan
5.5 Panjang
5.6 Had di dalam Penggunaan Nota Kaki
5.7 Anoinimiti Memorial


PERATURAN RASMI 6.0 Prosedur Pliding Lisan
6.1 Bahasa Pliding
6.2 Prosedur Am
6.2.1 Perlanjutan Masa Atas Budibicara Hakim
6.3 Pliding
6.3.1 Bangkangan atau Bangkangan Balas
6.3.2 Ruang Lingkup Pliding
6.4 Prosedur Ex Parte
6.5 Komunikasi Semasa Pertandingan
6.5.1 Komunikasi secara Lisan di dalam Mahkamah di Antara Kounsel dan Hakim
6.5.2 Komunikasi secara Lisan di dalam Mahkamah dan Aktiviti di Meja Kounsel
6.5.3 Komunikasi secara Bertulis di dalam Mahkamah
6.6 Penonton
6.6.1 Tunjuk Ajar
6.7 Audio dan Rakaman Video
6.8 Komputer dan Komputer Riba di dalam Mahkamah


PERATURAN RASMI 7.0 Prosecur Pertandingan Berpasangan
7.1 Pusingan Awal
7.1.1 Pasangan untuk Pusingan Awal
7.2 Pusingan Seterusnya
7.2.1 Pusingan Okta Akhir
7.2.2 Pusingan Suku Akhir, Separuh Akhir dan Akhir
7.3 Pasangan ke Pusingan Seterusnya
7.3.1 Peraturan Pasangan Am – “Power Seeding”


PERATURAN RASMI 8.0 Sistem Pemarkahan
8.1 Cara Pemarkahan
8.2 Panel Seorang Hakim
8.3 Panel Tiga Hakim
8.4 Penentuan Pemenang Pertandingan
8.5 Prosedur Pengaduan


PERATURAN RASMI 9.0 Award
9.1 Pemenang Moot
9.2 Oralis Terbaik
9.3 Memorial Terbaik


PERATURAN RASMI 10.0 Lain-Lain
10.1 Peraturan Tambahan




PERATURAN RASMI 1.0 Definisi

1.1 Ringkasan
“MMU” merujuk kepada Universiti Multimedia.

“MULS” merujuk kepada Persatuan Undang-Undang Universiti Multimedia.

1.2 Definisi Umum
“Pentadbir” ertinya, merujuk kepada mana-mana Pertandingan, individu yang dilantik untuk menguruskan pertandingan tersebut.

“Pusingan Seterusnya” ertinya Pusingan Peringkat Awal, Pusingan Suku Akhir, Pusingan Separuh Akhir, dan Pusingan Akhir.

“Perayu” ertinya Kumpulan (atau ahli-ahli kumpulan) yang mewakili pihak Perayu semasa pertandingan.

“Bailif” ertinya individu yang mengeluarkan arahan semasa acara penhujjahan

“Pertandingan” ertinya mana-mana Pertandintgan Moot yang dianjurkan oleh MULS.

“Pengarah Pertandingan” ertinya pengarah kepada pertandingan tersebut.

“Permasalahan dalam Pertandingan” ertinya persoalan-persoalan rasmi dalam mana-mana pertandingan sebagai tambahan atau pembetulan dalam mana-mana Penyelesaian Permasalahn atau pembetulan.

“Ketua Pentadbir” ertinya individu yang bertanggungjawab kepada panel-panel pentadbir.

“Memorial” ertinya hujjah-hujjah bertulis setiap Pihak, bertulis dan diserahkan berdasarkan kepada peruntukan-peruntukan ini.

“Jadual Rasmi” ertinya jadual rasmi pertandingan.

“Pusingan Lisan” ertinya pertandingan lisan secara perseorangan antara Pihak Perayu dan Pihak Responden sebelum lantikan para hakim.

“Jawatankuasa Penganjur” ertinya ahli-ahli MULS yang bertanggungjawab menganjur dan menguruskan pertandingan.

“Pusingan Awal” ertinya pusingan untuk menentukan enam belas (16) kumpulan yang mendapat tangga teratas untuk kelayakan ke pusingan seterusnya.

“Pengenalpastian Permasalahan” ertinya mengenalpasti secara rasmi Masalah-masalah dalam pertandingan dan peruntukan-peruntukan ini, seperti yang tersebut dalam Peruntukan 3.7.

“Responden” ertinya Kumpulan(atau peserta-peserta Kumpulan) yang mewakili pihak Responden pada tiap waktu yang ditentukan dalam Pertandingan.

“Peraturan” ertinya Peraturan dan Syarat-Syarat Pertandingan Moot Undang-Undang, tertakluk kepada Paraturan-peraturan tambahan.

“Pertandingan” ertinya peringkat pertandingan.

1.3 Tafsiran
Tafsiran merujuk kepada peruntukan-peruntukan ini kecuali yang tersebut sebaliknya,
(a) perkataan-perkataan dan ekspresi-ekspresi dalam bentuk tunggal dan perbilangan, dan perkataan-perkataan dan ekspresi-ekspresi dalam bentuk bilangan banyak termasuk bentuk tunggal.
(b) Perkataan-perkataan dan ekspresi-ekspresi yang merujuk kepada perkara gender termasuk feminin.

PERATURAN RASMI 2.0 Organisasi Pertandingan

2.1 Pentadbiran
Pertandingan adalah di bawah kelolaan MULS.

2.1.1 Pengarah Pertandingan
Pengarah Pertandingan, yang merupakan ahli MULS, akan menguruskan Pertandingan. Pengarah pertandingan mempunyai kuasa pemutus dalam segala perkara atau permasalahan yang timbul berkaitan dengan pertandingan ini.

Pengarah Pertandingan tidak dibenarkan :
(a) menjadi Hakim dan mempengaruhi mana-mana Hakim dalam apa jua cara,
(b) memberi sebarang bentuk bantuan atau arahan kepada mana-mana kumpulan yang bertanding dalam Pertandingan,
(c) bersikap prejudis terhadap mana-mana kumpulan yang bertanding dalam apa jua cara.

2.1.2 Pentadbir-pentadbir
Panel Pentadbir adalah terdiri dari tenaga pengajar bidang undang-undang. Ketua Pentadbir akan melantik seorang Pentadbir untuk setiap Pertandingan dan akan ditugaskan untuk menentukan tarikh dan lokasi untuk Pertandingan tersebut. Pentadbir adalah bertanggungjawab melaksanakan pertandingan agar ia selaras dengan Undang-Undang yang tersebut dan sentiasa berbincang dengan Ketua Pentadbir. Ketua Pentadbir dianggap sebagai Penyelesai kepada segala implementasi dan interpretasi kepada Undang-undang dan syarat-syarat ini.

Pentadbir tidak dibenarkan :
(a) menjadi pelatih atau memberi sebarang bentuk bantuan kepada Kumpulan tang berdaftar dalam pertandingan,
(b) bersikap prejudis terhadap mana-mana kumpulan yang bertanding dalam apa jua cara.

2.2 Struktur Pertandingan
Kecuali tersebut dengan terperinci dalam peruntukan-peruntukan dan Syarat-syarat Tambahan, Pertandingan adalah terbahagi kepada dua bahagian : (1) Pusingan Awal, yang akan dikendalikan mengikut sistem liga, dan (2) Pusingan Seterusnya, yang akan dikendalikan mengikut sistem kalah-mati. Pusingan Awal akan terpakai sekiranya terdapat lebih daripada eman belas (16) kumpulan yang bertanding.


PERATURAN RASMI 3.0 Penyertaan dan Kelayakan

3.1 Kelayakan Kumpulan
Semua fakulti undang-undang dan sekolah undang-undang, yang diiktiraf oleh Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia, adalah layah untuk menyertai Pertandingan ini.

Bilangan kumpulan yang layak untuk menyertai akan ditentukan oleh Jawatankuasa Penganjur.

3.2 Pendaftaran
Setiap kumpulan mesti memenuhi dan menyerahkan borang penyertaan kepada kepada Jawatankuasa Penganjur mengikut akhir pendaftaran dalam Jadual Rasmi.

Setaip kumpulan mesti membayar yuran pendaftaran yang sepatutnya (jika ada) mengikut tarikh akhir pendaftaran dalan Jadual Rasmi. Jumlah bayaran yuran pendaftaran (jika ada) ada tersebut dalam Syarat Tambahan.

3.3 Nombor kumpulan sebagai Tanda Pengenalan
Selepas tarikh pendaftaran mengikut jadual rasmi tamat, setiap kumpulan akan diberi nombor kumpulan oleh Jawatankuasa Penganjur.

3.4 Kedudukan Kumpulan dan Pemilihan
Kecuali tersebut secara terperinci dalam Peruntukan-peruntukan dan Syarat-syarat Tambahan, setiap kumpulna terdiri dari dua Oralis, iaitu (1) Pembicara dan (1) Pembantu Pembicara. Penyelidik-penyelidik boleh digunakan sebagai bantuan kepada kumpulan-kumpulan yang bertanding tetapi tidak perlu didaftarkan.

3.5 Kelayakan minima setiap keahlian untuk pertandingan
Seseorang itu adalah layak untuk menjadi ahli bagi sesebuah kumpulan sekiranya :
(a) beliau adalah pelajar sepenuh masa atau separuh masa dalam kursus pengajian yang setaraf dengan LL.B atau mana-mana program ijazah sarjana muda undang-undang, atau
(b) beliau berada dalam satu atau lebih dari satu kursus di sekolah undang-undang atau institusi lain dalam tahun pengajian akademik.

3.6 Ketidaklayakan
Mana-mana kumpulan yang menggunakan ahli kumpulan yang tidak layak, menyalahgunakan khidmat dari luar, atau Memorial kumpulan lain akan terkeluar dari pertandingan.

3.6.1 Rujukan kepada Ahli-ahli Kumpulan
Mana-mana kumpulan yang menggunakan ahli kumpulan yang tidak layak ialah :
(i) yang telah diterima masuk sebagai pengamal undang-undang dalam bidang undang-undang, atau
(ii) yang telah berdaftar sebagai pelajar lebih dari satu institusi, selain dari pelajar pelawat,
akan dianggap sebagai tidak layak.

3.6.2 Rujukan kepada penyalahgunaan khidmat atau bantuan dari luar
Mana-mana kumpulan yang menerima khidmat bantuan yang tidak sepatutnya akan terkeluar dari pertandingan. Semua penyelidikan, tulisan dan suntingan mesti terhasil dari Kumpulan yang bertanding sahaja. Walaubagaimana pun, ahli fakulti dan penasihat kumpulan dibenarkan memberi khidmat ansihat kepada kumpulan. Sebarang nasihat adalah terhad kepada : perbincangan asas kepada isu, cadangan-cadangan untuk sumber-submer penyelidikan, rundingan-rundingan berkaitan teknik pengacaraan lisan, lokasi untuk sumber-sumber penyelidikan, kaedah-kaedah asas tentang penyelidikan undang-undang, komen-komen asas terhadap hujjah organisasi dan struktur, aliran hujjah, dan format, dan nasihat berkaitan pilihan untuk pliding atau strategi yang sama semasa pusingan kalah-mati.

Pentadbir-pentadbir tidak dibenarkan menjadi jurulatih atau dalam apa juacara membantu kumpulan yang berdaftar dalam pertandingan. Kumpulan tersebut akan terkeluar dari pertandingan sekiranya didapati mendapat sebarang khidmat bantuan dari pentadbir-pentadbir.

Kmpulan-kumpulan, termasuk kumpulan-kumpulan yang telah diisyhtiharkan sebagai tidak layak dan Kumpulan-kumpulan yang telah kalah atau terkeluar dari pertandingan, tidak dibenarkan memberi sebarang bantuan kepada mana-mana kumpulan lain. Bantuan yang dilarang di sini termasuklah, tetapi tidak terhad kepada, memberi nota-nota atau Memorial kepada kumpulan yang bertanding, terlibat dalam latihan moot dengan kumpulan yang bertanding, atau menyediakan video atau pita audio berkaitan pusingan pertandingan yang lalu, sama ada pusingan latihan atau mana-mana pusingan-pusingan pertandingan, kepada kumpulan yang bertanding.

3.6.3 Rujukan kepada penggunaan Memorial dan Hujjah-hujjah dari Kumpulan pihak lawan
Sesebuah kumpulan tidak dibenarkan melihat Memorial masing-masing selain dari Perayu atau Responden yang layak mengikut apa yang telah ditetapkan oleh masing-masing pihak lawan.

3.7 Penjelasan Masalah
Kumpulan-kumpulan dibenarkan membuat permohonan bertulis untuk penjelasan kepada Persoalan Masalah dalam pertandingan kepada Ketua Pentadbir mengikut tarikh yang tertera dalam jadual rasmi. Berdasarkan kepada permohonan yang diterima dari semua Kumpulan, Ketua Pentadbir, selapas berunding dengan panel pentadbir-pentadbir, akan menyiarkan Penjelasan Masalah mengikut tarikh yang tertera dalam Jadual Rasmi. Penjelasan Masalah hanya terhad kepada penjelasan terhadap fakta yang terdapat dalam Masalah yang diberikan dalam pertandingan, dan tiada sebarang penjelasan dalam undang-undang akan dibenarkan. Setiap Kumpulan mesti memastikan bahawa mereka menerima dan sekadar patut nota-nota tentang Penjelasan Masalah untuk persediaan kepada pertandingan.


PERATURAN RASMI 4.0 Hakim-Hakim

4.1 Kelayakan individu sebagai Hakim
Ketua Pentadbir akan menentukan individu yang layak dilantik sebagai Hakim dalam Pusingan Lisan, tertakluk kepada proviso-proviso berikut :
(a) Pelajar-pelajar tidak dibenarkan menjadi hakim-hakim, kecuali calon-calon yang mempunyai Ijazah LL.M dan mana-mana Ijazah Sarjana yang tidak mempunyai sebarang hubungan terus secara bersekuktu dengan Kumpulan-kumpulan yang bertanding yang mana mereka hakimi.
(b) Penasihat-penasihat dari ahli fakulti atau pelatihpelatih, atau mana-mana individu yang mempunyai hubungan terus secara bersekutu dengan kumpulan yang bertanding, tidak dibenarkan menjadi Hakim dalam mana-mana Pertandingan sehingga kumpulan terkeluar atau tidak layak dari Pertandingan.

Hakim-hakim seharusnya mengundurkan diri dari menghakimi Kumpulan sekiranya mereka mempunyai hubungan peribadi atau hubungan profesional dengan individu yang bersekutu dengan kumpulan tersebut, dan sekiranya hubungan tersebut akan menjejaskan sebahagian atau mempamerkan ketidakpatutan. Walaubagaimana pun, hakim-hakim tidak sepatutnya mengundurkan diri mereka dari menghakimi sekiranya hanya sekadar mengenali ahli kumpulan.

4.2 Komen dari Hakim-Hakim
Para hakim digalakkan untuk memberi timbal balas kepada Kumpulan-kumpulan berkaitan dengan persembahan semasa dalam pertandingan lisan. Dalam memberi timbal balas tersebut, para hakim dinasihatkan untuk mengambil kira ketepatan masa dan jadual Pertandingan.


PERATURAN RASMI 5.0 Memorial

5.1 Penyerahan Memorial
Setiap Kumpulan yang mengambil bahagian dalam Pertandingan mesti menyediakan dan menyerahkan Memorial. Kumpulan tersebut mesti menyerahkan salinan Memorial ‘hardcopy’ kepada Ketua Pentadbir mengikut tarikh dan masa yang tersebut dalam Jadual rasmi. Tugasan menyediakan Memorial dalam bentuk ‘hardcopy’ adalah tugasan Kumpulan.

5.2 Bahasa dalam Memorial
Kumpulan-kumpulan boleh menyerahkan Memorial untuk Pertandingan in sama ada dalam Bahasa Inggeris atau Bahasa Malaysia seperti yang dikehendaki dalam setiap pertandingan. Terjemahan kepada Memorial mesti, kepada peringkat yang paling bagus, mengikut setiap patah penterjemahan. Kandungan dalam Memorial tidak boleh diperiksa semula, diperbaharui atau diperbaiki semasa dalam proses penterjemahan. Pentadbir, dalam budibicaranya boleh mengeluarkan mana-mana Kumpulan yang memperbaiki mana-mana kandungan perundangan dalam Memorial-memorial semasa penterjemahan.

5.3 Format Memorial
Jenis huruf dan ukuran teks dalam semua bahagian Memorial, termasuk nota-nota kaki, mesti sama dan mesti menggunakan Times New Roman, ukuran-12. Teks-teks pada semua bahagian Memorial, kecuali Muka Depan, isi Kandungan, dan Kandungan Autoriti, mesti menggunakan Dua Selangan, dan bermukasurat. Teks untuk nota-nota kaki mesti menggunakan Satu Selangan, tetapi mesti menggunakan Dua Selangan bagi setiap nota-nota kaki yang berasingan. Teks pada kepala rencana dibenarkan dalam Satu Selangan, tetapi mesti dalam Dua Selangan di antara setiap kepala rencana dan isi teks Memorial. Petikan daripada sumber-sumber luar dari luar yang mempunyai 50 patah perkataan atau lebih dalam mana-mana bahagian dalam Memorial akan ditanda (iaitu kanan dan kiri bertanda lekuk) dan boleh di letak dalam satu selangan.

5.4 Diskripsi Memorial

5.4.1 Bahagian-bahagian dalam Memorial
Memorial mesti mengandungi bahagian-bahagian berikut, dan hanya bahagian-bahagian yang tersebut sahaja :
(a) Muka Depan,
(b) Isi Kandungan,
(c) Indeks Autoriti,
(d) Gabungan-gabungan Autoriti,
(e) Pernyataan Perundangan
(f) Pembentangan Soalan,
(g) Pernyataan Fakta,
(h) Ringkasan Pliding,
(i) Pliding, dan
(j) Kesimpulan dan/atau Pelepasan Relif

5.4.2 Hujah Perundangan Terhad kepada Bahagian Rayuan
Hujjah perundangan atau interpretasi undang-undang terhadap fakta dalam Soalan dalam Pertandingan yang bersifat substantif dan kukuh sahaja yang akan diterima di dalam Bahagian ‘Pliding’ di dalam Memorial, termasuk Kesimpulan dan/atau Pelepasan Relif (kecuali hujjah telah dimasukkan ke dalam “Ringkasan Pliding” atau termasuk dalam “Pembentangan Soalan” ).

5.4.3 Kulit Muka
(a) Warna Kulit Muka Memorial
Kulit Muka pada memorial Parayu mesti berwarna merah, manakala pada responden mesti berwarna biru.

(b) Kandungan yang Tertera pada Kulit Muka Memorial
Setiap Memorial hanya dibenarkan mengandungi perkara-perkara berikut :
(i) Nombor pasukan,
(ii) Nama mahkamah,
(iii) Tahun Pertandingan,
(iv) Nama Kes, dan
(v) Tajuk dokumen (iaitu “Gabungan Autoriti Perayu/Responden).

(c) Nombor sebagai Pengenalan pada Kulit Muka Memorial
Setiap kumpulan mesti meletakkan nombor kumpulan masing-masing pada bahagian hujung atas kanan di luar muka depan Memorial, diikuti dengan ‘A’ untuk Perayu dan ‘R’ untuk Responden pada setiap Memorial. Sebagai contoh, untuk Kumpulan Nombor 000, tanda pengenalan adalah 000 A atau 000 R akan tertera pada Memorial di bahagian hujung atas kanan di luar muka depan Pliding atau Responden masing-masing.

5.4.4 Indeks Autoriti
“Indeks Autoriti” mesti dimasukkan pada setiap Memorial. Senarai ke semua autoriti undang-undang yang disebut dalam mana-mana bahagian dalam Memorial mesti disertakan dalam indeks. Indeks-indeks tersebut mesti selari dengan deskripsi yang terdapat dalam setiap autoriti agar pembaca secara munasabah dapat mengenalpasti dan mencari autoriti tersebut dalam mana-mana keluaran dalam edaran am, dan mesti dimasukkan juga nombor pada muka surat dalam Memorial pada mana-mana setiap autoriti yang disebutkan.

5.4.5 Gabungan Autoriti
Gabungan autoriti adalah dokumen-dokumen yang menyokong rayuan. Dokumen-dokumen yang didapati melalui sumber-sumber ‘online’ mesti disediakan dalam bentuk salinan ‘hardcopy’, sebolehnya dalam bentuk format PDF.

5.4.6 Pernyataan Fakta
Hakim-hakim akan membuat pertimbangan-pertimbangan berikut dalam menganalisa Pernyataan Fakta :
(a) Pernyataan fakta yang tersusun baik adalah terhad kepada fakta-fakta tertentu dan kesimpulan-kesimpulan yang dikehendaki berdasarkan kepada Soalan yang diberi untuk Pertandingan.
(b) Mana-mana fakta yang tiada sokongan, perubahan-perubahan terhadap fakta asal, pernyataan-pernyataan hujjah, atau kesimpulan-kesimpulan perundangan tidak boleh dimasukkan dalam pernyataan fakta.

Soalan-Soalan dalam Pertandingan boleh mempunyai fakta-fakta tertentu yang berkaitan atau teratu dari kes. Kumpulan-kumpulan akan diadili berdasarkan kepada kebolehan mereka dalam menepati fakta-fakta dalam hujjah mereka tanpa membuat sebarang fakta baru atau membuat kesimpulan-kesimpulan yang tidak munasabah daripada Soalan dalam Pertandingan tersebut.

5.4.7 Ringkasan Pliding
Ringkasan Pliding yang baik dan tersusun mesti mempunyai ringkasan substantif di bahagian “Pliding” dalam Memorial.dan bukannya menghasilkan semula ringkasan yang terdapat pada bahagian Pliding.

5.5 Panjang
a) Bahagian-bahagian pliding untuk setiap memorial, termasuk nota kaki, dan Kesimpulan dan/atau Permohonan untuk Relief mestilah tidak melebihi 9,000 patah perkataan.

b) Bahagian Ringkasan Pliding untuk setiap memorial mestilah tidak melebihi 1,000 patah perkataan.

c) Bahagian Pernyataan Fakta untuk setiap memorial mestilah tidak melebihi 1,200 patah perkataan.

Pengiraan perkataan hendaklah menggunakan piawaian “Word Count” seperti di dalam Windows, Microsoft Word.

5.6 Had di dalam Penggunaan Nota Kaki
Nota kaki boleh digunakan . Walaubagaimanapun, nota kaki hendaklah digunakan untuk mengenal pasti dari mana pernyataan itu dibuat di dalam memorial dan untuk menyatakan petikan kepada pembaca. Nota kaki tidak merangkumi pliding substantif, contohnya, atau lain-lain teks melainkan yang telah dinyatakan. Nota kaki termasuk di dalam pengiraan perkatan di bawah Peraturan 5.5

Memasukkan teks selain daripada petikan yang sebenar di dalam nota kaki adalah melanggar Peraturan 5.4.2. Kegagalan berulang kali untuk memasukkan informasi yang mencukupi di dalam nota kaki adalah satu penalti dan tertakluk kepada budibicara pihak Pentadbir.

Contoh illustrasi nota kaki yang diterima : Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 356

Contoh illustrasi nota kaki yang melanggar Peraturan Rasmi : Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 356 menyatakan prinsip-prinsip yang penting bahawa perenggan (a), (b), dan (e) seksyen 24 Akta Kontrak 1950 hendaklah dibaca berasingan .

Untuk ciri petikan, rujuk Appendiks H dan I daripada http://www/mmu.edu.my/~crpp/

5.7 Anoinimiti di dalam Memorial
Nama-nama ahli pasukan tidak akan dinyatakan di atas, atau di dalam memorial. Mukasurat yang ditandatangan juga tidak dibenarkan di dalam Memorial. Nama sekolah boleh dinyatakan melainkan dinyatakan sebaliknya.


PERATURAN RASMI 6.0 Prosedur Pliding Lisan

6.1 Bahasa Pliding
Di dalam Pusingan Lisan, Pasukan boleh menggulung di dalam bahasa Inggeris atau Bahasa Melayu, sebagimana yang di kehendaki di dalam setiap pertandingan.

6.2 Prosedur Am
Setiap Pusingan Lisan diperutukkan sembilan puluh (90) minit untuk pliding lisan di mana Perayu dan Responden masing-masing diberikan empat puluh lima (45) minit. Tidak lebih daripada dua (2) orang ahli daripada setiap Pasukan akan membuat presentatsi lisan didalam pusingan ini. Sebelum Pusingan Lisan bermula, setiap Pasukan dikehendaki memberitahu bailif bagaimana masa 45 minit itu akan diagihkan kepada (a) oralis pertama (b) oralis kedua, dan (c) Bangkangan (untuk Perayu) atau bangkangan balas (untuk Responden). Setiap Pasukan tidak boleh memperuntukkan lebih daripada 25 minit, termasuk bangkangan atau bangkangan balas kepada mana-mana oralis. Masa yang diperuntukkan tetapi tidak digunakan oleh mana-mana oralis tidak boleh digunakan oleh oralis yang lain, atau semasa bangkangan atau bangkangan balas.. Mana-mana ahli pasukan dibenarkan bertindak sebagai oralis ketika mana-mana pusingan di dalam pertandingan.

6.2.1.Perlanjutan Masa atas Budibicara Hakim.
Hakim-hakim boleh, di atas budibicara mereka, melanjutkan keseluruhan masa hujahan lisan Pasukan melebihi peruntukan empat puluh (45) minit yang diberikan. Oralis boleh, di dalam keadaan ini, hadir melebihi dua puluh lima (25) minit iaitu had individual sekiranya diminta untuk memberikan penerangan yang lebih.

6.3 Pliding
Susunan pliding untuk setiap pusingan adalah :-
Perayu 1 Responden 1 Perayu 2 Responden 2 Bangkangan (Perayu 1 atau 2) Bangkangan balas (Responden 1 atau 2). Oralis tidak boleh membuat hujahan tambahan setelah beliau menamatkan pliding utama, melainkan untuk bangkangan atau bangkangan balas.

6.3.1 Bangkangan atau Bangkangan balas.
Setiap Pasukan dibenarkan untuk menyimpan sehingga sepuluh (10) minit untuk bangkangan atau bangkangan balas. Sebagai kesopanan kepada hakim-hakim, Pasukan haruslah mengumumkan samada mereka ingin menyimpan masa untuk bangkangan atau bangkangan balas di awal hujahan lisan mereka, dan berapa banyak masa yang ingin mereka simpan. Kegagalan untuk memaklumkan tidak mengenepikan hak untuk bangkangan atau bangkangan balas. Hanya seorang oralis akan membuat bangkangan atau bangkangan balas. Pasukan tidak perlu menyatakan siapa di antara oralis yang akan membuat bangkangan atau bangkangan balas.

6.3.2 Ruang Lingkup Pliding
Pliding lisan pasukan tidak hanya terhad kepada ruang lingkup memorial Pasukan sahaja. Ruang lingkup bangkangan Perayu adalah terhad kepada menjawab pliding lisan primary pihak Respoden, dan Ruang lingkup bangkangan balas adalah terhad kepada menjawab bangkangan pihak Perayu. Responden tidak perlu membuat bangkangan balas sekiranya Perayu mengenepikan bangkangan pihak Perayu. Walaupun hakim-hakim dinasihatkan untuk menguatkuasa had Ruang lingkup bangkangan dan bangkangan balas, dan boleh mengambilkira perlanggaran Peraturan ini didalam pencapaian oralis, tiada penalti akan dikenakan di atas melepasi Ruang lingkup bangkangan atau bangkangan balas.

6.4 Prosedur Ex Parte
Di dalam keadaan di mana selepas menunggu dua puluh (20) minit , sesebuah pasukan gagal hadir ke Pusingan Lisan yang dijadualkan, pihak Pentadbir boleh meneruskan pusingan lisan secara ex parte. Di dalam prosiding ex parte, pasukan yang hadir akan mempersembahkan pliding lisan seolah-olah pasukan yang tidak hadir telahpun mempersembahkan pliding lisan mereka. Di dalam kes ini, melainkan disokong dengan alasan yang munasabah, semua markah lisan pasukan yang gagal hadir, seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah Peraturan 8.1(a), akan ditarik balik.

6.5 Komunikasi Semasa Pertandingan
Hanya komunikasi secara lisan yang diterangkan di bawah Peraturan 6.4 dibenarkan. Secara tepatnya, tiada komunikasi secara bertulis atau eksibit boleh diserahkan oleh mana-mana ahli pasukan kepada hakim.

6.5.1 Komunikasi secara Lisan di dalam Mahkamah di antara Kounsel dan Hakim
Komunikasi di antara Hakim-hakim dan oralis semasa tempoh masa oralis adalah dibenarkan.

6.5.2 Komunikasi secara Lisan di dalam Mahkamah dan Aktiviti di Meja Kounsel
Komunikasi di meja oralis boleh dibuat secara bertulis or secara perlahan agar tidak mendatangkan gangguan, dan semua pasukan harus mengelakkan bising, ketawa, atau lain-lain kelakuan yang tidak sopan yang boleh mengganggu perjalanan hujahan.

6.5.3 Komunikasi secara Bertulis di dalam Mahkamah
Komunikasi secara bertulis semasa Pusingan Lisan hendaklah terhad kepada komunikasi bertulis di antara ahli Pasukan yang duduk di meja kounsel . Sebarang komunikasi bertulis di antara oralis, ahli-ahli pasukan lain yang duduk di meja counsel, penonton atau ahli pasukan yang tidak duduk di meja counsel adalah tidak dibenarkan.

6.6 Penonton
Semua Pusingan Awal dan Pusingan seterusnya terbuka kepada awam. Semasa Pusingan Lisan, jurulatih pasukan, penasihat, atau lain-lain penonton dibenarkan berada di dalam bilik mahkamah

6.6.1 Tunjuk Ajar
Ahli pasukan atau mana-mana orang yang membantu secara langsung mana-mana pasukan hanya boleh menghadiri Pusingan Awal di mana kumpulan mereka bertanding. Perlanggaran kepada Peraturan ini harus dibawa ke pengetahuan Administrator serta merta, tanpa menggagu Pusingan Lisan, atau sebaik sahaja selepas Pusingan Lisan tamat.

Terdapat dua bentuk tunjuk ajar yang mana kedua-duanya adalah dilarang:

(a) “Tunjuk ajar secara langsung” berlaku apabila sesebuah pasukan atau ahli-ahlinya hadir Pusingan Lisan yang mana pasukannya mungkin akan bertanding dengan pasukan tersebut di Pusingan Lisan akan datang.
(b) “Tunjuk ajar secara tidak langsung” berlaku apabila sesebuah pasukan atau ahlinya menghadiri satu Pusingan Lisan yang membabitkan dua pasukan yang mana ianya tidak dijadualkan untuk bertanding di dalam Pusingan Awal.

Mana-mana pasukan yang dikenalpasti melakukan Tunjuk ajar secara langsung atau tidak langsung dengan niat untuk menunjuk ajar akan bertanggunggan terhadap pemotongan markah seperti dinyatakan di dalam jadual 1 oleh pihak Administrator. Di dalam keadaan di mana kesalahan tersebut berulangkali dilakukan, Ketua Pentadbir akan membatalkan penyertaan pasukan tersebut.

6.7 Audio dan Rakaman Video
Selain daripada Pusingan Akhir, tiada audio atau rakaman video untuk merakam pliding lisan dibenarkan tanpa kebenaran daripada panel hakim dan Pentadbir terlebih dahulu. Penggunaan mana-mana alat, yang boleh menyimpan audio dan/atau video dilarang semasa Pertandingan. Pasukan-pasukan yang mengambil bahagian tidak dibenarkan menonton atau mendengar mana-mana pita audio sehingga selesai Pertandingan tersebut yang mana melibatkan Pusingan Lisan. MULS memegang semua hak terhadap audio dan rakaman video, atau apa-apa bentuk terbitan suara dan visual, terhadap mana-mana Pusingan Lisan atau mana-mana bahagian. Semua pasukan adalah dianggap telah bersetuju untuk dirakam dan disiarkan mana-mana rakaman Pusingan Lisan.

6.8 Komputer dan Komputer Riba di dalam Mahkamah.
Semasa Pusingan Lisan, oralis dan ahli-ahli pasukan yang duduk di meja counsel tidak boleh mengendalikan komputer riba, atau komputer atau apa-apa peralatan komputer untuk apa-apa tujuan pun.


PERATURAN RASMI 7.0 Prosedur Pertandingan berpasangan

7.1 Pusingan Awal
Melainkan dinyatakan di dalam Peraturan tambahan, di dalam Pusingan Awal, setiap pasukan akan mengambil bahagian di dalam dua (2) Pusingan Lisan, satu sebagai Perayu dan satu lagi sebagai Responden. Purata markah untuk kedua-dua pusingan akan digunakan untuk menentukan enam belas (16) kumpulan yang teratas layak ke Pusingan seterusnya.

Setiap pasukan harus, bertemu mana-mana Pasukan lawan hanya sekali di dalam Pusingan Awal. Sekiranya Pasukan tersebut terpaksa bertemu di dua (2) pusingan lisan semasa Pusingan awal, setiap Pasukan hendaklah menjadi Perayu di satu pusingan dan Responden di pusingan yang lain.

7.1.1 Pasangan untuk Pusingan Awal
Pasangan untuk setiap Pasukan akan dibuat, bagi peringkat pertama, melalui cabutan secara rawak. Pihak Pentadbir boleh mengubah pasukan-pasukan disebabkan oleh ketidakhadiran sesuatu pasukan atau lain-lain sebab. Sekiranya pasukan-pasukan diberi pasangan baru, mereka hendaklah memberi memorial kepada pihak pembangkang secepat mungkin, tidak kurang dari lima belas (15) minit sebelum pertandingan dimulakan.

7.2 Pusingan Seterusnya
Pusingan Seterusnya terdiri daripada Pusingan Octa Akhir, Pusingan Suku akhir, Pusingan Separuh Akhir dan Pusingan Akhir.

7.2.1 Pusingan Okta Akhir
Pusingan Okta Akhir terdiri dari enam belas (16) pasukan teratas di dalam Pusingan Awal, sebagaimana dinyatakan di dalam Peraturan 7.1. Sekiranya seri, Pasukan yang mempunyai purata markah lisan yang lebih tinngi akan layak ke Pusingan seterusnya. Sekiranya terdapat dua (2) pasukan mempunyai purata markah lisan yang sama, pasukan yang mendapat purata marakah yang lebih tinggi untuk kandungan perundangan di dalam memorial bertulis akan layak ke Pusingan seterusnya. Sekiranya kedua-dua purata markah tersebut adalah seri, maka terpulanglah kepada budibicara pihak Pentadbir untuk menentukan dan keputusan tersebut tidak boleh dipertikaikan.

7.2.2 Pusingan Suku Akhir, Separuh Akhir dan Akhir.
Di Pusingan Suku Akhir terdiri daripada empat (4) pasang iaitu dari lapan (8) pasukan yang menang di Pusingan Okta akhir. Pusingan Separuh Akhir pula terdiri dari dua (2) pasangan iaitu empat (4) pasukan yang menang di Pusingan Suku Akhir.Dua (2) pasukan yang menang di Pusingan Separuh Akhir akan ke Pusingan Akhir.

7.3 Pasangan ke Pusingan Seterusnya
Pasangan untuk ke Pusingan Seterusnya dan Memorial pihak pembangkang akan diedarkan kepada pasukan-pasukan pada hari pertama Pertandingan. Pihak Pentadbir boleh mengubah pasangan disebabkan ketidakhadiran mana-mana pasukan. Atas sebab berikut, pihak Pentadbir akan memberitahu Pasukan yang terlibat dan memberi Memorial pihak satu lagi secepat mungkin.

7.3.1 Peraturan Pasangan Am – ‘Power Seeding’
Pasangan di dalam Pusingan Seterusnya akan ditentukan menggunakan ‘power-seeding’. Bagi tujuan Peraturan ini, semua kedudukan akan ditentukan melalui kedudukan terakhir di Pusingan Awal.

Contoh illustrasi: di bawah Peraturan ini, pasangan di dalam Pusingan Okta Akhir adalah seperti berikut:
1 vs.9, 5 vs. 13, 3 vs. 11, 7 vs. 15, 2 vs. 10, 6 vs. 14, 4 vs. 12, 8 vs. 16.


PERATURAN RASMI 8.0 Sistem Permarkahan

8.1 Cara Permarkahan
Sistem permarkahan terdiri daripada dua (2) bahagian, iaitu:
(a) Permarkahan di Pusingan Lisan (70%)
(b) Permarkahan untuk Memorial Bertulis (30%)

Jumlah markah pertandingan bagi sesebuah pasukan adalah jumlah (a) dan (b). Untuk pecahan markah,sila rujuk Jadual 1 dan 2.

Markah untuk Memorial bertulis akan diberi oleh Pentadbir, dan markah tersebut tidak akan diberitahu kepada para hakim. Markah untuk Pusingan Lisan akan diberikan oleh hakim yang berkenaan. Semua keputusan yang dibuat di dalam sistem permarkahan adalah di atas budi bicara pihak Pentadbir dan/atau hakim dan adalah muktamad.

Hakim hendaklah merahsiakan markah yang diberikan kepada setiap pasukan, dan keputusan setiap hakim; hanya identiti pasukan yang menang akan diberitahu.

8.2 Panel Seorang Hakim
Sekurang-kurangnya akan terdapat seorang (1) hakim untuk:
(a) Pusingan Awal; dan
(b) Pusingan Seterusnya (daripada Pusingan Okta akhir hingga Pusingan Separuh Akhir)

8.3 Panel Tiga Hakim
Administrator akan melantik tiga (3) hakim di dalam Pusingan Akhir, sekiranya perlu.

8.4 Penentuan Pemenang Pertandingan
Pemenang pertandingan adalah Pasukan yang berjaya mendapat jumlah markah yang tertinggi di bawah Peraturan 8.1 (a) dan (b). Sekiranya seri, Pasukan yang mendapat markah yang lebih tinggi semasa Pusingan Lisan akan menang. Sekiranya terdapat dua (2) pasukan mempunyai purata markah lisan yang sama, pasukan yang mendapat purata marakah yang lebih tinggi untuk kandungan perundangan di dalam memorial bertulis akan menang. Sekiranya kedua-dua purata markah tersebut adalah seri, maka terpulanglah kepada budibicara pihak Pentadbir untuk menentukan dan keputusan tersebut adalah muktamad dan tidak boleh dipertikaikan.

8.5 Prosedur Pengaduan
Sekira sesebuah Pasukan percaya perlanggaran Peraturan telah berlaku semasa Pusingan Lisan, beliau hendaklah memberitahu bailif secara bertulis dalam masa lima (5) minit daripada penutupan Pusingan Lisan. Pasukan hendaklah memberitahu Administrator berkaitan aduan, sekiranya tiada bailif. Perlanggaran tersebut dan pihak yang terbabit dengan perlanggaran itu hendaklah dinyatakan dengan jelas di dalam kenyataan bertulis. Kegagalan mematuhi prosedur yang diperuntukan di dalam perenggan ini akan menyebabkan aduan pasukan tersebut ditolak. Sekiranya seorang atau lebih hakim percaya bahawa terdapat perlanggaran semasa Pusingan Lisan, beliau hendaklah memberitahu bailif secara lisan atau secara bertulis dalam tempoh lima (5) selepas Pusingan Lisan selesai. Sekiranya perlu, perkara tersebut hendaklah dibawa ke bailif di luar pengetahuan lain-lain hakim.


PERATURAN RASMI 9.0 Award

9.1 Pemenang Moot
Pasukan yang berjaya di dalam mengumpul markah tertinggi di bawah Peraturan 8.1 di Pusingan Akhir akan memenangi pertandingan. Pasukan yang menang di Pusingan Akhir akan menerima trofi yang dipertandingkan.

9.2 Oralis Terbaik
Di setiap Pusingan Lisan, oralis yang mendapat markah lisan individu tertinggi di bawah Peraturan 8.1 (a) akan menjadi Oralis Terbaik. Sekiranya terdapat persamaan markah untuk dua (2) atau lebih oralis, hakim mempunyai budi bicara untuk menentukan Oralis Terbaik, dan keputusan tersebut tidak boleh dipertikaikan. Hanya Oralis Terbaik di Pusingan Akhir akan layak mendapat Trofi Oralis Terbaik.

9.3 Memorial Terbaik
Di dalam Pusingan Akhir, Pasukan yang mendapat markah tertinggi untu Memorial bertulis di bawah Peraturan 8.1(b) akan mendapat Trofi Memorial Terbaik. Sekiranya seri, Ketua Pentadbir mempunyai budi bicara untuk menentukan Pasukan yang layak untuk mendapat trofi tersebut, dan keputusan tersebut adalah muktamad.



PERATURAN RASMI 10.0 Lain-lain

10.1 Peraturan Tambahan
Di dalam setiap Pertandingan, Jawatankuasa penganjur boleh membuat Peraturan tambahan berkaitan implementasi Peraturan-Peraturan Rasmi dan berkaitan apa-apa perkara incidental, ancillary atau tambahan atau berkenaan perjalanan dan pentadbiran Pertandingan.

MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY LAW MOOT COMPETITION RULES AND REGULATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS


OFFICIAL RULE 1.0 Definition 1
1.1 Abbreviations 1
1.2 General Definition 1
1.3 Interpretation 2


OFFICIAL RULE 2.0 Organisation of the Competition 2
2.1 Administration 2
2.1.1 Competition Director 2
2.1.2 Administrator(s) 2
2.2 Structure of the Competition 3


OFFICIAL RULE 3.0 Participation and Eligibility 3
3.1 Team Eligibility 3
3.2 Registration 3
3.3 Team Number as Identification 3
3.4 Team Composition and Selection 3
3.5 Minimum requirements for Team member eligibility 3
3.6 Ineligibility 4
3.6.1 With Reference to Team Members 4
3.6.2 With Reference to improper outside assistance 4
3.6.3 With Reference to the use of Opposing Team’s Memorials and Arguments 4
3.7 Problem Clarifications 4


OFFICIAL RULE 4.0 Judges 5
4.1 Eligibility of Persons to Judge 5
4.2 Commentary by Judges 5


OFFICIAL RULE 5.0 Memorials 5
5.1 Submission of Memorials 5
5.2 Language of Memorials 5
5.3 Format of Memorials 6
5.4 Description of the Memorial 6
5.4.1 Parts of the Memorial 6
5.4.2 Legal Argument Limited to Pleading Section 6
5.4.3 Covers 6
5.4.4 Index of Authorities 7
5.4.5 Bundle(s) of Authorities 7
5.4.6 Statement of Facts 7
5.4.7 Summary of Pleadings 7
5.5 Length 8
5.6 Limitations on the Use of Footnotes 8
5.7 Anonymity in Memorials 8


OFFICIAL RULE 6.0 Oral Pleading Procedures 8
6.1 Language of Pleadings 8
6.2 General Procedures 9
6.2.1 Extension of Time at Judges’ Discretion 9
6.3 Pleadings 9
6.3.1 Rebuttal and Surrebuttal 9
6.3.2 Scope of Pleadings 9
6.4 Ex Parte Procedure 10
6.5 Competition Communications 10
6.5.1 Oral Courtroom Communication between Counsel and Judges 10
6.5.2 Oral Courtroom Communication and Activity at Counsel Table 10
6.5.3 Written Courtroom Communication 10
6.6 Spectators 10
6.6.1 Scouting 10
6.7 Audio and Videotaping 11
6.8 Computers and Laptops in Courtrooms 11


OFFICIAL RULE 7.0 Competition Pairing Procedures 11
7.1 Preliminary Rounds 11
7.1.1 Pairings for Preliminary Rounds 11
7.2 Advanced Rounds 12
7.2.1 Octafinal Rounds 12
7.2.2 Quarterfinal Rounds, Semifinal Rounds, and Final Round 12
7.3 Pairings for Advanced Rounds 12
7.3.1 General Pairing Rule – Power Seeding 12


OFFICIAL RULE 8.0 Scoring System 12
8.1 Method of Scoring 13
8.2 One Judge Panel 13
8.3 Three Judge Panel 13
8.4 Determining Winner of a Match 13
8.5 Complaint Procedure 13


OFFICIAL RULE 9.0 Awards 14
9.1 Winner of the Moot 14
9.2 Best Oralist 14
9.3 Best Memorial 14


OFFICIAL RULE 10.0 Miscellaneous 14
10.1 Supplementary Rules 14


OFFICIAL RULE 1.0 Definition

1.1 Abbreviations
“MMU” refers to Multimedia University.

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


1.2 General Definition
“Administrator” means, with respect to any Tournament, the person appointed to administer the Tournament.

“Advanced Rounds” means the Octafinal Rounds, the Quarterfinal Rounds, the Semifinal Rounds, and the Final Round.

“Appellant” means the Team (or the members of a Team) which submits on behalf of the Appellant at any given point in the Competition.

“Bailiff” means person who maintains order during an Oral Round.

“Competition” means any Moot Competition organised by MULS.

“Competition Director” means the director of the Competition.

“Competition Problem” means the official competition question of any Tournament 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.

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

“Oral Round” means a single match of oral presentation between the Appellant Team and the Respondent Team before the appointed judge(s).

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

“Preliminary Rounds” means rounds to determine the sixteen (16) highest ranking Teams that would advance to the Advanced Rounds.

“Problem Clarifications” means the official clarifications of the Competition Problem and of these Rules, as published pursuant to Rule 3.7.

“Respondent” means the Team (or the members of a Team) which submits on behalf of the Respondent at any given point in the Competition.

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

“Team” means any team registered for the Competition.

“Tournament” means a competitive level of the Competition.


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.



OFFICIAL RULE 2.0 Organisation of the Competition

2.1 Administration
The Competition is administered by the MULS.

2.1.1 Competition Director
The Competition Director, who is a member of the MULS, shall administer the Competition. The Competition Director shall have the final say in all matters or disputes related to the conduct of the Competition.

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.

2.1.2 Administrator(s)
There shall be a panel of Administrators, who are Law Academicians. The Head Administrator will appoint an Administrator for each Tournament and will designate the date and location for the Tournament. The Administrator must conduct the Tournament consistent with these Rules and in consultation with the Head Administrator. The Head Administrator shall serve as final arbiter of implementation and interpretation of these Rules and Regulations.

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


2.2 Structure of the Competition
Unless otherwise specified in the supplementary rules, the Competition consists of two levels: (1) Preliminary Rounds, which will be conducted according to the league system; and (2) Advanced Rounds, which will be conducted by means of knock-out system. Preliminary Rounds is applicable if there are more than sixteen (16) participating Teams.



OFFICIAL RULE 3.0 Participation and Eligibility

3.1 Team Eligibility
All law faculties and law schools, which are recognised by the Malaysian Higher Education Ministry, are eligible to participate in the Competition.

Number of Teams eligible to participate shall be determined by the Organising Committee.


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

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.


3.3 Team Number as Identification
After the registration deadline in the Official Timetable, the Organising Committee will assign each Team a team number.


3.4 Team Composition and Selection
Unless otherwise specified in the supplementary rules, a Team is composed of two (2) oralists, namely one (1) counsel and one (1) co-counsel. Researchers may be enlisted for assistance at the discretion of the teams but need not be registered.


3.5 Minimum requirements for Team member eligibility
A person may only be a member of a Team if he or she is enrolled:
(a) as a student full-time or part-time in a programme of study leading to the equivalent of a LL.B or any recognised law degree programme; or
(b) in one or more courses at a law school or other institution which is participating in the Competition during the relevant academic year.


3.6 Ineligibility
Any Team which utilises an ineligible Team member, improper outside assistance, or other Team’s Memorial will be disqualified from the Competition.

3.6.1 With Reference to Team Members
Any Team which utilises an ineligible Team member who:
(i) has been admitted to the bar or admitted to legal practice in any jurisdiction; or
(ii) is enrolled as a student at more than one institution, other than as a visiting student;
shall be disqualified.

3.6.2 With Reference to improper outside assistance
Any Team which receives inappropriate outside assistance will be disqualified from the Competition. All research, writing and editing must be solely the product of Team members. However, faculty members and other Team advisors may provide advice to a Team. Such advice must be limited to: general discussions of the issues; suggestions as to research sources; consultations regarding oral advocacy technique; the location of legal sources; general legal research methods; general commentary on argument organisation and structure, the flow of arguments, and format; and advice during Competition elimination rounds as to pleading option or similar strategy.

Administrator(s) may not serve as coach or in any other way assist a Team registered in his or her Tournament. Otherwise, such Team that receives inappropriate outside assistance from Administrator(s) will be disqualified from the Competition.

Teams, including Teams that have been declared ineligible and Teams that have been eliminated or disqualified from the Competition, may not provide assistance in any way to any other Team. Assistance hereby prohibited includes, but is not limited to, giving the Team’s notes or Memorials to an advancing Team, engaging in practice moots against an advancing Team, or providing video or audio tapes of previous rounds, either practice rounds or competitive tournament rounds, to an advancing Team.

3.6.3 With Reference to the use of Opposing Team’s Memorials and Arguments
A Team may not view or otherwise become privy to any Memorial other than the applicable Appellant or Respondent Memorials of each of its scheduled opponents.


3.7 Problem Clarifications
Teams may submit written requests for clarifications of the Competition Problem to the Head Administrator by the date in the Official Timetable. Based upon the requests received from all Teams, the Head Administrator, upon consultation with the panel of Administrators, will publish Problem Clarifications on the date in the Official Timetable. Problem Clarifications is only limited to factual clarifications of the Competition Problem, and no legal clarifications will be allowed. Each Team must ensure that it receives and adequately notes the Problem Clarifications in preparation for the Competition.



OFFICIAL RULE 4.0 Judges

4.1 Eligibility of Persons to Judge
The Head Administrator will determine persons who are eligible to serve as judges in any Oral Round, subject to the following provisions:
(a) Students may not act as judges, except LL.M and other post graduate degree candidates who are not directly affiliated with any Team participating in the Tournament at which they are judging.
(b) Team faculty advisors or coaches, or other persons directly affiliated with a Team, may not act as judges in any Tournament until the Team has been eliminated or disqualified from the Competition.

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.


4.2 Commentary by Judges
Judges are encouraged to provide direct feedback to Teams regarding the Teams’ performance at the completion of an Oral Round. In providing such feedback, judges are advised to give due regard to the time limitations and schedule of the Tournament.



OFFICIAL RULE 5.0 Memorials

5.1 Submission of Memorials
Each Team participating in any Tournament must prepare and submit Memorial. The 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 the Team.


5.2 Language of Memorials
Teams may submit Memorials for the Tournament in either English or Bahasa Malaysia, as required in each Competition. The translation of Memorials shall be, to the utmost degree possible, a word for word translation. The contents of Memorials may not be revised, updated or otherwise altered in the translation process. The Administrator, in his discretion may disqualify any Team that alters the legal content of its Memorial(s) during translation.


5.3 Format of Memorials
The font and size of the text of all parts of the Memorial, including footnotes, must be the same and must be in Times New Roman, 12-point. The text of all parts of the Memorial, except the Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Table of Authorities, must be double-spaced, justified, and paginated. The text of footnotes may be single-spaced, but there must be double-spacing between separate footnotes. The text of the heading may be single-spaced, but there must be double spacing between each heading and the body-text of the Memorials. Quotation to sources outside of the Memorial of 50 words or more in any part of the Memorial may be block quoted (i.e. right and left indented) and may be single-spaced.


5.4 Description of the Memorial

5.4.1 Parts of the Memorial
The Memorial must contain the following parts, and only the following parts:
(a) Cover Page;
(b) Table of Contents;
(c) Index of Authorities;
(d) Bundle(s) of Authorities;
(e) Statement of Jurisdiction;
(f) Questions Presented;
(g) Statement of Facts;
(h) Summary of Pleadings;
(i) Pleading; and
(j) Conclusion and/or Prayer for Relief.

5.4.2 Legal Argument Limited to Pleading Section
Substantive, affirmative legal argument or legal interpretation of the facts of the Competition Problem may only be presented in the ‘Pleadings’ section of the Memorial, including the Conclusion and/or Prayer for Relief (except insofar as such argument may be summarised in the ‘Summary of the Pleadings’ or anticipated in the ‘Question Presented’).

5.4.3 Covers
(a) The Colour of the Memorial Covers
The Appellant’s Memorial Covers shall be in red, whereas for the Respondent’s shall be in blue.

(b) Information Contained on the Memorial Cover
Each Memorial should bear on its cover only the following:
(i) the team number;
(ii) the name of the court;
(iii) the year of the Competition;
(iv) the name of the case; and
(v) the title of the document (i.e. ‘Appellant/ Respondent’s Bundle of Authorities’).

(c) The Number as Identification on the Memorial Cover
The team number must be placed in the upper right-hand corner of the outside front cover of each Memorial, followed by an ‘A’ for the Appellant and an ‘R’ for the Respondent Memorial. For example, for team number 000, the identification of 000 A or 000 R would appear at the upper right hand corner of the outside front cover of the Appellant or Respondent Memorials respectively.

5.4.4 Index of Authorities
An “Index of Authorities” must be included in each Memorial. A list of all legal authorities cited in any section of the Memorial must be enclosed in the Index. The Index must incorporate a description of each authority adequate to allow a reasonable reader to identify and locate the authority in a publication of general circulation, and must include page number(s) of the Memorial on which each authority is cited.

5.4.5 Bundle(s) of Authorities
Bundle(s) of Authorities are documents in support of the appeal. Documents obtained from online sources must be reduced to hardcopy, as much as possible in PDF format.

Examples of authorities include statutory law and case law. The number of authorities cited in each Memorial must not be more than fifteen (15).

5.4.6 Statement of Facts
Judges will take the following into consideration in assessing the Statement of Facts:
(a) A well-formed Statement of Facts should be limited to the particular facts and required inferences from the Competition Problem.
(b) Any unsupported facts, distortions of stated facts, argumentative statements, or legal conclusions should not be included in the Statement of Facts.

The Competition Problem by and large omits certain facts which might be relevant or dispositive to the outcome of the case. Teams will be judged on their ability to conform the facts to their arguments without creating new facts or drawing unreasonable inferences from the Competition Problem.

5.4.7 Summary of Pleadings
A well-formed Summary of Pleadings should consist of a substantive summary of the “Pleadings” section of the Memorial instead of a simple reproduction of the headings contained in the Pleadings section.


5.5 Length
(a) The Pleadings section of each Memorial, including any footnotes or endnotes and the Conclusion and/or Prayer for Relief, must not be more than 9,000 words.
(b) The Summary of Pleadings section of each Memorial must not be more than 1,000 words.
(c) The Statement of Facts section of each Memorial must not be more than 1,200 words.

Word count shall be carried out using the standard “Word Count” feature such as that in Microsoft Word for Windows.


5.6 Limitations on the Use of Footnotes
Footnotes may be used. Nevertheless, footnotes are to be used only to identify the source of a statement made in the body of the Memorial and to provide the reader with a citation to a generally available reference for that source. Footnotes may not include substantive pleadings, examples, or any other text other than the actual cite. Footnotes are to be included in the word count of Rule 5.5.

Inclusion of text other than the actual cite in a footnote is a violation of Rule 5.4.2. Gross and repeated failure to include sufficient information in footnotes is, in the sole discretion of the Administrator, a discretionary Penalty.

Illustrative example of an acceptable footnote: Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 356.

Illustrative example of a footnote in violation of the Official Rules: Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 356 laid down the important principle that paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) of section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 should be read disjunctively.

For citation style, refer to Appendix H and Appendix I from http://www.mmu.edu.my/~crpp/.


5.7 Anonymity in Memorials
Names of Team members may not appear on or within the Memorials. Signature pages are prohibited as well. Name of schools may appear unless provided otherwise.



OFFICIAL RULE 6.0 Oral Pleading Procedures

6.1 Language of Pleadings
In the Oral Round, Team may submit in either English or Bahasa Malaysia, as required in each Competition.


6.2 General Procedures
Each Oral Round consists of ninety (90) minutes of oral pleadings where Appellant and Respondent are each allotted forty five (45) minutes. There shall not be more than two (2) members from each Team to make oral presentations during the round. Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each Team is required to indicate to the bailiff how it wishes to allocate its 45 minutes among (a) its first oralist, (b) its second oralist, and (c) rebuttal (for Appellant) or surrebuttal (for Respondent). The Team shall not allocate more than twenty-five (25) minutes, including rebuttal or surrebuttal, to either oralist. Time allocated for but not used by one oralist may not be used by another oralist, or in the rebuttal or surrebuttal. Any Team member is allowed to act as an oralist during any round of the Competition.

6.2.1 Extension of Time at Judges’ Discretion
Judges may, at their discretion, extend total Team oral argument time beyond the forty five (45) minute allocation. Oralists may, in this instance, appear for more than the twenty five (25) minute individual limit if asked to further expand upon arguments.


6.3 Pleadings
In each Round at all levels of the Competition the order of the pleadings is:
Appellant 1 Respondent 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 2 Rebuttal (Appellant 1 or 2) Surrebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2). An oralist may not make any additional argument once he or she has completed main pleading, except for rebuttal or surrebuttal. This applies irrespective of whether the pleading Team uses all of the time it has allocated for the main pleading. Further, any time that is not used in the main pleading may not be used to extend the time allocated to rebuttal or surrebuttal.

6.3.1 Rebuttal and Surrebuttal
Each Team is allowed to reserve up to ten (10) minutes for rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a courtesy to the judges, at the beginning of their oral argument, Teams should announce whether they intend to reserve time for rebuttal or surrebuttal, and how much time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce will not waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one oralist may deliver the rebuttal or surrebuttal. The Team need not indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible oralists will deliver rebuttal or surrebuttal.

6.3.2 Scope of Pleadings
A Team’s oral pleadings are not limited to the scope of the Team’s Memorial. The scope of the Appellant’s rebuttal is limited to responding to the Respondent’s primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent’s surrebuttal is limited to responding to the Appellant’s rebuttal. The Respondent may not appear for surrebuttal if the Appellant waives rebuttal. Although judges are advised to enforce the limits on the scope of rebuttal and surrebuttal, and may take a violation of this Rule into account in evaluating an oralist’s performance, there is no discretionary or non-discretionary Penalty for exceeding scope of rebuttal or surrebuttal.


6.4 Ex Parte Procedure
In circumstances where after waiting twenty (20) minutes, a Team fails to appear for a scheduled Oral Round, the Administrator may allow the Oral Round to proceed ex parte. In the ex parte proceeding, the attending Team shall present its oral pleading, 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 Round forfeits all oral score stipulated under Rule 8.1(a).


6.5 Competition Communications
Only oral communications described under Rule 6.4 are permitted. In particular, no written communication or exhibits may be delivered by any Team member to any judge.

6.5.1 Oral Courtroom Communication between Counsel and Judges
Communication between judges and oralists during the oralist’s allotted time is allowed.

6.5.2 Oral Courtroom Communication and Activity at Counsel Table
Communication at the counsel table may be in writing or in a discreet tone to prevent disruption, and Teams shall avoid all unnecessary noise, outbursts, or other inappropriate behaviour which distracts from the argument in progress.

6.5.3 Written Courtroom Communication
Written communication during the Oral Round shall be limited to written communication among Team members seated at the counsel table. No other written communication may take place among the oralist, Team members seated at counsel table, spectators or Team members not present at the counsel table.


6.6 Spectators
All Preliminary Rounds and Advanced Rounds are open to the general public. During Oral Rounds, the presence of the Team’s coaches, advisors, or other spectators affiliated are permitted in the courtroom.

6.6.1 Scouting
Team members or persons directly affiliated with any Team may attend only Preliminary Rounds in which their Team is competing. Violation of this Rule should be brought to the attention of the Administrator immediately, without disturbing the Oral Round, or immediately after the Oral Round has finished.

There are two types of scouting, both of which are prohibited:
(a) “Direct Scouting” occurs when a Team or any of its members attends an Oral Round involving one or more Teams against which it will compete in a future Oral Round.
(b) “Indirect Scouting” occurs when a Team or any of its members attends an Oral Round involving two Teams against which it is not scheduled to compete in the Preliminary Rounds.

A Team that is found committing Direct Scouting and/or Indirect Scouting with the intent of scouting shall be liable for deduction of score stipulated in Schedule 1 by the Administrator. In the event of repeated offence of scouting, the Head Administrator shall disqualify the Team.


6.7 Audio and Videotaping
Apart from Final Round, no audio or videotaping of oral pleadings is permitted without the advance permission of the entire panel of judges and the Administrator. The use of any appliance, capable of storing audio and/or video is prohibited during the Competition. 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 Oral Round occurs. MULS reserves all rights to the audio and videotaping, or any other form of aural or visual reproduction, of any Oral Round or part thereof. All Teams participating in the Competition will be deemed to have consented to taping and broadcasting of any Oral Round.


6.8 Computers and Laptops in Courtrooms
During an Oral Round, oralists at the podium and Team members seated at counsel table shall not operate laptop, handheld or desktop computers or computing devices for any purpose.



OFFICIAL RULE 7.0 Competition Pairing Procedures

7.1 Preliminary Rounds
Unless otherwise specified in the supplementary rules, in the Preliminary Rounds, each Team shall participate in two (2) Oral Rounds, once as the Appellant and once as the Respondent. The average scores for both rounds will be used to determine the sixteen (16) highest ranking Teams eligible to proceed to the Advanced Rounds.

Each Team shall, to the degree possible, face any opposing Team only once in the Preliminary Rounds. In the event that Teams must face each other in two (2) Oral Rounds in the Preliminary Rounds, each Team shall plead as Appellant in one Round and Respondent in the other Round.

7.1.1 Pairings for Preliminary Rounds
The pairing of Teams for Preliminary Rounds shall be done, in the first instance, by a random draw. The Administrator 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.


7.2 Advanced Rounds
The Advanced Rounds consist of the Octafinal Rounds, the Quarterfinal Rounds, the Semifinal Rounds, and the Final Round.

7.2.1 Octafinal Rounds
The Octafinal Rounds consist of sixteen (16) highest ranking Teams from the Preliminary Rounds, as described in Rule 7.1. In the event of a tie, the Team with the higher average oral score shall proceed to the Advanced Rounds. If the two Teams have equal average oral score, the Team with the higher average score for the legal content of the written Memorial shall proceed. In the event of a tie with respect to both such scores, the Team eligible to proceed will be decided by the Head Administrator and the decision shall not be disputed.

7.2.2 Quarterfinal Rounds, Semifinal Rounds, and Final Round
The Quarterfinal Rounds consist of four (4) pairings of each of the eight (8) Teams that win a match in the Octafinal Rounds. The Semifinal Rounds consist of two (2) pairings of each of the four (4) Teams that win a match in the Quarterfinal Rounds. The two (2) winning Teams from the Semifinal Rounds shall advance to the Final Round.


7.3 Pairings for Advanced Rounds
Pairings for the Advanced Rounds and the Memorials of opposing Teams will be distributed to Teams on the first day of the Tournament. The Administrator may subsequently modify the pairings to account for absent Teams. In such case, the Administrator will notify affected Teams and deliver their opponents’ Memorials as soon as possible.

7.3.1 General Pairing Rule – Power Seeding
The pairings in the Advanced Rounds shall be determined by use of “power-seeding”. For purposes of this Rule, all rankings shall be determined by the final standings of the Preliminary Rounds.

Illustrative example: Under this rule, the pairings in the Octafinal Rounds would be as follow:
1 vs. 9, 5 vs. 13, 3 vs. 11, 7 vs. 15, 2 vs. 10, 6 vs. 14, 4 vs. 12, 8 vs. 16.



OFFICIAL RULE 8.0 Scoring System

8.1 Method of Scoring
The scoring system consists of two parts, namely:
(a) Scoring of the Oral Round (70%);
(b) Scoring of the written Memorial (30%).

A Team’s total competition score is the sum total of (a) and (b). For the break down of the scores, refer to Schedule 1 and 2.

Scores for the written Memorials will be given by the Administrator(s), and such scores may not be revealed to the judge(s). Scores for the Oral Round will be given by the respective judge(s). All decisions made in the scoring system are at the discretion of the Administrator(s) and/or judge(s) and shall not be disputed.

Judges must keep confidential from all Teams the exact score in each pairing, and each judge’s determination in the pairing; only the identity of the winning Team shall be revealed.


8.2 One Judge Panel
There would be at least one (1) judge in the panel for:
(a) Preliminary Rounds; and
(b) Advanced Rounds (from Octafinal Rounds until the Semifinal Rounds).


8.3 Three Judge Panel
The Administrator shall employ three (3) judges in the Final Round whenever possible.


8.4 Determining Winner of a Match
The winner of the match will be the Team with the highest sum total of Rule 8.1(a) and (b). In the event of a tie, the Team with the higher score for the Oral Round wins the match. If the two Teams have equal score for the Oral Round, the Team with the higher score for the legal content of the written Memorial wins the match. If the event of a tie with respect to both oral and legal content scores, the winner of the match will be decided by the judge(s) and the decision shall not be disputed.


8.5 Complaint Procedure
If a Team believes that a violation of the Rules has occurred during an Oral Round, he shall inform the bailiff in writing within five (5) minutes of the conclusion of that Oral Round. Teams must approach the Administrator with complaints if there is no bailiff. 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. Failure to follow any of the procedures stipulated in this paragraph shall result in a waiver of the Team’s complaint.

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



OFFICIAL RULE 9.0 Awards

9.1 Winner of the Moot
The Team that succeeds in accumulating the highest score in Rule 8.1 in the Final Round shall win the Moot. The Team that wins in the Final Round will receive the Challenge Trophy.


9.2 Best Oralist
In each Oral Round, the oralist with the highest individual oral score in Rule 8.1(a) shall be deemed to be the Best Oralist. In the event of equal score for two or more oralists, the judge(s) shall have the discretion to determine the Best Oralist, and such decision shall not be disputed. Only the Best Oralist in the Final Round will be eligible for the Best Oralist Trophy.


9.3 Best Memorial
In the Final Round, the Team with the highest score for the written Memorial in Rule 8.1(b) will be entitled for the Best Memorial Trophy.

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



OFFICIAL RULE 10.0 Miscellaneous

10.1 Supplementary Rules
In each Competition, the Organising Committee may make supplementary rules in respect of the implementation of the Official Rules and in respect of any matters incidental, ancillary or supplementary thereto or concerning the conduct and administration of the Competition.