Please be informed that the Director wants to meet the representative from the teams that proceed to the semi finals to discuss about the timeline tomorrow, 24th February 2010 at 8 p.m, in the Law Library.
Thank you.
Feb 23, 2010
Semi Final Round Question
Semi Finals Round Question (English)
In the High Court of Malaya at Malacca
Michael Yeo & 6 Others v Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Another
The seven applicants are individuals and registered proprietors of residential properties known Lot 3215 to 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘the said Properties’). The said Properties are part of Lot 8282 (‘Lot 8282’) which had been sub-divided into various sub-divided titles including the said Properties.
Adjoining the said Properties is a parcel of land known as Lot 8534 (Lot 8534) to which adjoins another parcel of land known as Lot 8655 (Lot 8655). Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 have been set aside for the purpose of maintaining open public spaces under a development plan duly approved by the first respondent in or about April 2004 (‘the said Plan’)
The first respondent is the local authority in charge of Historical Melaka City (‘HMC’) and is vested with the powers in respect of the approval of development plans within HMC.
The second respondent, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd is a developer who submitted the said Plan and completed the development of Lot 8282 which include the said Properties.
The said Properties were built on the basis that Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 were to be reserved for public spaces. It was on this basis that the residential properties forming part of Lot 8282 were sold to the respective purchasers, including the applicants. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 too were vested in the first respondent to keep the parcels of land open for public spaces.
On 15 November 2007 the second respondent applied for an amendment to the said Plan, viz to develop Lot 8655 as two blocks of 8 storey apartments (64 units) with gymnasium at roof level and an underground car park.
Notice was given on 10 July 2008 by the first respondent in The Star and Berita Harian and also by way of a letter dated 10 July 2008 to the applicants regarding the proposed development. The applicants raised various objections in their respective letters dated 21, 22 and 23 July 2008 to the first respondent and also during a meeting convened by the Director of Town Planning of the first respondent on 18 September 2008.
On 16 July 2009 the first respondent issued a notice which was received by the applicants between 23 and 27 July 2009 whereby the first respondent informed the applicants that the first respondent was approving the development and granting permission to develop Lot 8655.
The population density of the area where the said Properties and Lots 8534 and 8655 are situated is 32 persons per acre. The proposed development of Lot 8655 would have increased the density to 98 persons per acre. The nearest distance between the said Properties and Lot 8655 is 52ft.
At the High Court, the applicants sought leave to apply for inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first respondent dated 16 July 2009. In seeking leave, the applicants raised several grounds, inter alia:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
The applicants’ application for leave, which was ex parte, was converted to an inter partes application by the judge exercising his discretion. The respondents opposed the application.
The High Court dismissed the application on both grounds. On the first ground, relying on the majority decision in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff J held that the applicants did not have locus standi in respect of the application. Since they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655, their private rights had not been interfered with and they did not suffer any special damages peculiar to them. On the second ground, the learned judge held that the applicants did not stand in direct relationship with the first respondent. Again, they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655 and did not have any direct dealings with the first respondent.
The applicants now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
Semi Finals Question (BM)
Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Melaka
Michael Yeo & Enam Lagi lwn Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Satu Lagi
Ketujuh-tujuh pemohon adalah individu dan tuan punya berdaftar harta kediaman yang dikenali sebagai Lot 3215 hingga 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘Harta tersebut’). Harta tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 yang telah dipecah bahagi kepada beberapa hakmilik termasuk Harta tersebut.
Bersebelahan Harta tersebut adalah sekeping tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8534; bersebelahan Lot 8534 pula adalah sekeping lagi tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8655. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 telah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam di bawah pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan oleh responden pertama pada atau kira-kira pada bulan April 2004 (‘Pelan tersebut’)
Responden pertama adalah pihak berkuasa tempatan yang bertanggungjawab ke atas Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (BMB) dan diberi kuasa ke atas sebarang kelulusan bagi pelan pembangunan dalam kawasan BMB.
Responden kedua, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd merupakan pemaju yang mengemukakan Pelan tersebut dan menyiapkan pembangunan Lot 8282 yang termasuk Harta tersebut.
Harta tersebut telah dibina berdasarkan bahawa Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 hendaklah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam. Berdasarkan inilah harta-harta kediaman yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 telah dijual kepada para pembeli termasuk pemohon-pemohon. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 juga telah diletakhak kepada responden pertama untuk menjaga tanah-tanah tersebut sebagai kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 15 November 2007 responden kedua telah memohon pindaan kepada Pelan tersebut, iaitu untuk membangunkan Lot 8655 menjadi dua buah pangsapuri (64 unit) dengan gimnasium di tingkat atas dan tempak letak kereta di bawah bangunan.
Notis telah diberikan pada 10 Julai 2008 oleh responden pertama dalam akhbar The Star dan Berita Harian dan juga melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 Julai 2008 kepada pemohon-pemohon berkenaan cadangan pembangunan atas Lot 8655. Pemohon-pemohon mengemukakan beberapa bantahan dalam surat-surat mereka bertarikh 21, 22 dan 23 Juy 2008 kepada responden pertama dan juga semasa pertemuan yang diadakan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Perancang Bandar yang merupakan pegawai responden pertama pada 18 September 2008.
Pada 16 Julai 2009 responden pertama telah mengeluarkan notis yang telah diterima oleh pemohon-pemohon antara 23 dan 27 Julai 2009 di mana responden pertama memaklumkan pemohon-pemohon bahawa pihaknya telah memutuskan untuk meluluskan cadangan pembangunan dan memberi kebenarann untuk membangunkan Lot 8655.
Kepadatan populasi di kawasan di mana Harta tersebut dan Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 terletak adalah 32 orang bagi setiap ekar. Pembanganun yang dicadangkan ke atas Lot 8655 akan meningkatkan kepadatan tersebut kepada 98 orang bagi setiap ekar. Jarak terdekat antara Harta tersebut dan Lot 8655 adalah 52 kaki.
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, pemohon-pemohon memohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah untuk memohon, antara lainnya, satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan responden pertama bertarikh 16 Julai 2009. Dalam permohonan untuk kebenaran mahkamah, pemohon-pemohon telah membangkitkan beberapa alasan, antara lainnya:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(i) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Permohonan pemohon-pemohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah, yang dibuat secara ex parte, telah ditukar kepada permohonan inter partes oleh hakim menggunakan budi bicaranya. Kedua-dua responden telah membantah permohonan pemohon-pemohon.
Mahkamah Tinggi telah menolak permohonan tersebut atas kedua-dua alasan. Bagi alasan pertama, bersandarkan keputusan majoriti dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia lwn Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff HMT memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai locus standi. Oleh kerana mereka bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 hak-hak peribadi mereka tidak terjejas dan mereka tidak mengalami apa-apa kerugian istimewa yang khusus kepada mereka. Bagi alasan kedua, Yang Arif Hakim memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai pertalian terus dengan responden pertama. Sekali lagi, pemohon-pemohon bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 dan tidak berurusan terus dengan responden pertama.
Pemohon-pemohon sekarang ini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan atas alasan-alasan berikut:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(ii) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
In the High Court of Malaya at Malacca
Michael Yeo & 6 Others v Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Another
The seven applicants are individuals and registered proprietors of residential properties known Lot 3215 to 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘the said Properties’). The said Properties are part of Lot 8282 (‘Lot 8282’) which had been sub-divided into various sub-divided titles including the said Properties.
Adjoining the said Properties is a parcel of land known as Lot 8534 (Lot 8534) to which adjoins another parcel of land known as Lot 8655 (Lot 8655). Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 have been set aside for the purpose of maintaining open public spaces under a development plan duly approved by the first respondent in or about April 2004 (‘the said Plan’)
The first respondent is the local authority in charge of Historical Melaka City (‘HMC’) and is vested with the powers in respect of the approval of development plans within HMC.
The second respondent, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd is a developer who submitted the said Plan and completed the development of Lot 8282 which include the said Properties.
The said Properties were built on the basis that Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 were to be reserved for public spaces. It was on this basis that the residential properties forming part of Lot 8282 were sold to the respective purchasers, including the applicants. Lot 8534 and Lot 8655 too were vested in the first respondent to keep the parcels of land open for public spaces.
On 15 November 2007 the second respondent applied for an amendment to the said Plan, viz to develop Lot 8655 as two blocks of 8 storey apartments (64 units) with gymnasium at roof level and an underground car park.
Notice was given on 10 July 2008 by the first respondent in The Star and Berita Harian and also by way of a letter dated 10 July 2008 to the applicants regarding the proposed development. The applicants raised various objections in their respective letters dated 21, 22 and 23 July 2008 to the first respondent and also during a meeting convened by the Director of Town Planning of the first respondent on 18 September 2008.
On 16 July 2009 the first respondent issued a notice which was received by the applicants between 23 and 27 July 2009 whereby the first respondent informed the applicants that the first respondent was approving the development and granting permission to develop Lot 8655.
The population density of the area where the said Properties and Lots 8534 and 8655 are situated is 32 persons per acre. The proposed development of Lot 8655 would have increased the density to 98 persons per acre. The nearest distance between the said Properties and Lot 8655 is 52ft.
At the High Court, the applicants sought leave to apply for inter alia, an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first respondent dated 16 July 2009. In seeking leave, the applicants raised several grounds, inter alia:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
The applicants’ application for leave, which was ex parte, was converted to an inter partes application by the judge exercising his discretion. The respondents opposed the application.
The High Court dismissed the application on both grounds. On the first ground, relying on the majority decision in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff J held that the applicants did not have locus standi in respect of the application. Since they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655, their private rights had not been interfered with and they did not suffer any special damages peculiar to them. On the second ground, the learned judge held that the applicants did not stand in direct relationship with the first respondent. Again, they were not the registered proprietors of Lot 8655 and did not have any direct dealings with the first respondent.
The applicants now appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:
(i) that the applicants have locus standi in respect of the application;
(i) that the decision amounts to a breach of their legitimate expectations, viz that Lot 8655 together with Lot 8534, had been reserved for open public spaces.
Semi Finals Question (BM)
Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Melaka
Michael Yeo & Enam Lagi lwn Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah & Satu Lagi
Ketujuh-tujuh pemohon adalah individu dan tuan punya berdaftar harta kediaman yang dikenali sebagai Lot 3215 hingga 3221, Jalan Muzaffar Shah, Muzaffar Heights, Ayer Keroh, Melaka (‘Harta tersebut’). Harta tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 yang telah dipecah bahagi kepada beberapa hakmilik termasuk Harta tersebut.
Bersebelahan Harta tersebut adalah sekeping tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8534; bersebelahan Lot 8534 pula adalah sekeping lagi tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 8655. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 telah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam di bawah pelan pembangunan yang diluluskan oleh responden pertama pada atau kira-kira pada bulan April 2004 (‘Pelan tersebut’)
Responden pertama adalah pihak berkuasa tempatan yang bertanggungjawab ke atas Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (BMB) dan diberi kuasa ke atas sebarang kelulusan bagi pelan pembangunan dalam kawasan BMB.
Responden kedua, Lestari Development Sdn Bhd merupakan pemaju yang mengemukakan Pelan tersebut dan menyiapkan pembangunan Lot 8282 yang termasuk Harta tersebut.
Harta tersebut telah dibina berdasarkan bahawa Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 hendaklah dirizabkan sebagai kawasan lapang awam. Berdasarkan inilah harta-harta kediaman yang menjadi sebahagian daripada Lot 8282 telah dijual kepada para pembeli termasuk pemohon-pemohon. Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 juga telah diletakhak kepada responden pertama untuk menjaga tanah-tanah tersebut sebagai kawasan lapang awam.
Pada 15 November 2007 responden kedua telah memohon pindaan kepada Pelan tersebut, iaitu untuk membangunkan Lot 8655 menjadi dua buah pangsapuri (64 unit) dengan gimnasium di tingkat atas dan tempak letak kereta di bawah bangunan.
Notis telah diberikan pada 10 Julai 2008 oleh responden pertama dalam akhbar The Star dan Berita Harian dan juga melalui satu surat bertarikh 10 Julai 2008 kepada pemohon-pemohon berkenaan cadangan pembangunan atas Lot 8655. Pemohon-pemohon mengemukakan beberapa bantahan dalam surat-surat mereka bertarikh 21, 22 dan 23 Juy 2008 kepada responden pertama dan juga semasa pertemuan yang diadakan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Perancang Bandar yang merupakan pegawai responden pertama pada 18 September 2008.
Pada 16 Julai 2009 responden pertama telah mengeluarkan notis yang telah diterima oleh pemohon-pemohon antara 23 dan 27 Julai 2009 di mana responden pertama memaklumkan pemohon-pemohon bahawa pihaknya telah memutuskan untuk meluluskan cadangan pembangunan dan memberi kebenarann untuk membangunkan Lot 8655.
Kepadatan populasi di kawasan di mana Harta tersebut dan Lot 8534 dan Lot 8655 terletak adalah 32 orang bagi setiap ekar. Pembanganun yang dicadangkan ke atas Lot 8655 akan meningkatkan kepadatan tersebut kepada 98 orang bagi setiap ekar. Jarak terdekat antara Harta tersebut dan Lot 8655 adalah 52 kaki.
Di Mahkamah Tinggi, pemohon-pemohon memohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah untuk memohon, antara lainnya, satu perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan responden pertama bertarikh 16 Julai 2009. Dalam permohonan untuk kebenaran mahkamah, pemohon-pemohon telah membangkitkan beberapa alasan, antara lainnya:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(i) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
Permohonan pemohon-pemohon untuk kebenaran mahkamah, yang dibuat secara ex parte, telah ditukar kepada permohonan inter partes oleh hakim menggunakan budi bicaranya. Kedua-dua responden telah membantah permohonan pemohon-pemohon.
Mahkamah Tinggi telah menolak permohonan tersebut atas kedua-dua alasan. Bagi alasan pertama, bersandarkan keputusan majoriti dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia lwn Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, Umar Shariff HMT memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai locus standi. Oleh kerana mereka bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 hak-hak peribadi mereka tidak terjejas dan mereka tidak mengalami apa-apa kerugian istimewa yang khusus kepada mereka. Bagi alasan kedua, Yang Arif Hakim memutuskan bahawa pemohon-pemohon tidak mempunyai pertalian terus dengan responden pertama. Sekali lagi, pemohon-pemohon bukanlah tuan punya berdaftar Lot 8655 dan tidak berurusan terus dengan responden pertama.
Pemohon-pemohon sekarang ini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan atas alasan-alasan berikut:
(i) bahawa pemohon-pemohon mempunyai locus standi;
(ii) bahawa keputusan tersebut merupakan pelanggaran harapan sah pemohon-pemohon, iaitu Lot 8655 dan Lot 8534 telah dirizabkan untuk kawasan lapang awam.
CONGRATULATIONS
We would like to apologize for delaying the release of the preliminary rounds results. This is due to long holidays of Chinese New Year.
Rule 3.2.5 stated that four highest ranking teams in each tournament will progress to the Advanced Rounds.
Below are the Top 4 rankings for Preliminary Rounds of MMU Law Moot Competition 2009/10.
BM.
1. Team No 2 – Goh Shook Mei & Lim Soon Sheng
2. Team No 16 – Andrew Law Ching Hui & Tan Yen Siang
3. Team No 10 – Siti Roslianti Rosli & Najwa Aqilah Mansor
4. Team No 42 – Chiam Fui Ting & Ashvena Jairaman
ENG.
1. Team No 12 – Ina Shafina Bt. Shahimi & Aziyan Bt. Azlan
2. Team No 46 – Teng Peck Yin & Kang Wei Luen
3. Team No 24 – Sara Nanthini Dharmaraj & Lim Qiu Jin
4. Team No 58 – Nurshafiqah Bt. Mohd Yusof & Freda Nur Adilah Bt. Mohd Noor
The draw for the Semifinal Rounds is pursuant to Official Rule 3.3.3.
Teams that proceed to the Semi Final Rounds may submit their request of problem clarification at mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com on 24th February 2010 before 5.00 pm. The formats are as follows:
To: MMU Law Moot Organizing Committee (mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com)
Cc: SAIFUL DZULHELMI (stalfia_inbox@hotmail.com)
Subject: REQUEST FOR PROBLEM CLARIFICATION [TEAM NO. BM or ENG]
*Please submit your request for problem clarification in your team's moot language.
Rule 3.2.5 stated that four highest ranking teams in each tournament will progress to the Advanced Rounds.
Below are the Top 4 rankings for Preliminary Rounds of MMU Law Moot Competition 2009/10.
BM.
1. Team No 2 – Goh Shook Mei & Lim Soon Sheng
2. Team No 16 – Andrew Law Ching Hui & Tan Yen Siang
3. Team No 10 – Siti Roslianti Rosli & Najwa Aqilah Mansor
4. Team No 42 – Chiam Fui Ting & Ashvena Jairaman
ENG.
1. Team No 12 – Ina Shafina Bt. Shahimi & Aziyan Bt. Azlan
2. Team No 46 – Teng Peck Yin & Kang Wei Luen
3. Team No 24 – Sara Nanthini Dharmaraj & Lim Qiu Jin
4. Team No 58 – Nurshafiqah Bt. Mohd Yusof & Freda Nur Adilah Bt. Mohd Noor
The draw for the Semifinal Rounds is pursuant to Official Rule 3.3.3.
Teams that proceed to the Semi Final Rounds may submit their request of problem clarification at mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com on 24th February 2010 before 5.00 pm. The formats are as follows:
To: MMU Law Moot Organizing Committee (mmulawmoot10@hotmail.com)
Cc: SAIFUL DZULHELMI (stalfia_inbox@hotmail.com)
Subject: REQUEST FOR PROBLEM CLARIFICATION [TEAM NO. BM or ENG]
*Please submit your request for problem clarification in your team's moot language.
Preliminary Rounds Ranking
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (BM)
01) Team 2
02) Team 16
03) Team 10
04) Team 42
05) Team 64
06) Team 69
07) Team 45
08) Team 19
09) Team 14
10) Team 47
11) Team 31
12) Team 83
13) Team 26
14) Team 65
15) Team 3
16) Team 11
17) Team 70
18) Team 62
19) Team 33
20) Team 18
21) Team 38
22) Team 40
23) Team 85
24) Team 13
25) Team 82
26) Team 48
27) Team 76
28) Team 87
29) Team 77
30) Team 75
31) Team 84
32) Team 5
33) Team 78
34) Team 6
35) Team 81
36) Team 34
37) Team 8
38) Team 20
39) Team 74
40) Team 7
41) Team 88
42) Team 61
43) Team 50
44) Team 71
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (English)
01) Team 12
02) Team 46
03) Team 24
04) Team 58
05) Team 27
06) Team 35
07) Team 55
08) Team 60
09) Team 66
10) Team 30
11) Team 79
12) Team 36
13) Team 53
14) Team 21
15) Team 39
16) Team 37
17) Team 80
18) Team 4
19) Team 15
20) Team 67
21) Team 43
22) Team 32
23) Team 56
24) Team 86
25) Team 59
26) Team 44
27) Team 9
28) Team 23
29) Team 49
30) Team 63
31) Team 29
32) Team 22
33) Team 51
34) Team 73
35) Team 68
36) Team 52
37) Team 72
38) Team 28
39) Team 1
40) Team 57
41) Team 25
42) Team 41
43) Team 17
44) Team 54
01) Team 2
02) Team 16
03) Team 10
04) Team 42
05) Team 64
06) Team 69
07) Team 45
08) Team 19
09) Team 14
10) Team 47
11) Team 31
12) Team 83
13) Team 26
14) Team 65
15) Team 3
16) Team 11
17) Team 70
18) Team 62
19) Team 33
20) Team 18
21) Team 38
22) Team 40
23) Team 85
24) Team 13
25) Team 82
26) Team 48
27) Team 76
28) Team 87
29) Team 77
30) Team 75
31) Team 84
32) Team 5
33) Team 78
34) Team 6
35) Team 81
36) Team 34
37) Team 8
38) Team 20
39) Team 74
40) Team 7
41) Team 88
42) Team 61
43) Team 50
44) Team 71
Preliminary Rounds Team Ranking (English)
01) Team 12
02) Team 46
03) Team 24
04) Team 58
05) Team 27
06) Team 35
07) Team 55
08) Team 60
09) Team 66
10) Team 30
11) Team 79
12) Team 36
13) Team 53
14) Team 21
15) Team 39
16) Team 37
17) Team 80
18) Team 4
19) Team 15
20) Team 67
21) Team 43
22) Team 32
23) Team 56
24) Team 86
25) Team 59
26) Team 44
27) Team 9
28) Team 23
29) Team 49
30) Team 63
31) Team 29
32) Team 22
33) Team 51
34) Team 73
35) Team 68
36) Team 52
37) Team 72
38) Team 28
39) Team 1
40) Team 57
41) Team 25
42) Team 41
43) Team 17
44) Team 54
Feb 16, 2010
NOTICE
Dear all,
Kindly be informed that the release of the Preliminary Rounds result will be postponed until further notice.
Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Kindly be informed that the release of the Preliminary Rounds result will be postponed until further notice.
Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Feb 12, 2010
ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear all,
The moot result for the Preliminary Rounds will be announced on Wednesday, 17th February 2010 after the Chinese New Year.
We would like to take this opportunity to wish a Happy Chinese New Year to the participants whom are celebrating.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
The moot result for the Preliminary Rounds will be announced on Wednesday, 17th February 2010 after the Chinese New Year.
We would like to take this opportunity to wish a Happy Chinese New Year to the participants whom are celebrating.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Feb 5, 2010
NOTICE
FRIDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY 2010
The Amendments and Clarifications to the Competition Problem stand i.e No procedural issues and/or grounds shall be submitted to the court.
Any memorials raising procedural issues, please let me have a look by Monday 12 noon.
Regards,
Hafiz Hassan.
The Amendments and Clarifications to the Competition Problem stand i.e No procedural issues and/or grounds shall be submitted to the court.
Any memorials raising procedural issues, please let me have a look by Monday 12 noon.
Regards,
Hafiz Hassan.
Feb 4, 2010
Time Allocation
The time allocation for the Competition is pursuant to Rule 8.2:
8.2 General Procedures
8.2.1 In a Moot, each Team is allowed forty five (45) minutes to moot, which is to be apportioned as follows:
(a) counsel – 20 minutes
(b) co-counsel – 20 minutes
(c) rebuttal and surrebuttal – 5 minutes
8.2.2 Any of the counsels in each Team is entitled to deliver a rebuttal or surrebuttal.
8.2.3 Nothing may be handed up to the judge(s).
8.2 General Procedures
8.2.1 In a Moot, each Team is allowed forty five (45) minutes to moot, which is to be apportioned as follows:
(a) counsel – 20 minutes
(b) co-counsel – 20 minutes
(c) rebuttal and surrebuttal – 5 minutes
8.2.2 Any of the counsels in each Team is entitled to deliver a rebuttal or surrebuttal.
8.2.3 Nothing may be handed up to the judge(s).
Reminder
Dear all,
Kindly take note of the following:-
8.7 Prohibition from attending a Moot
8.7.1 Team members or persons directly affiliated with any Team shall not attend a Moot in which their Team is not competing. If there is any violation the Administrator must be informed immediately, without disturbing the Moot, or immediately after the Moot has ended.
8.7.2 The Head Administrator shall have the discretion to impose a penalty on teams that violate this rule.
* Please remember to bring your own memorial to the Competition.
Kindly take note of the following:-
8.7 Prohibition from attending a Moot
8.7.1 Team members or persons directly affiliated with any Team shall not attend a Moot in which their Team is not competing. If there is any violation the Administrator must be informed immediately, without disturbing the Moot, or immediately after the Moot has ended.
8.7.2 The Head Administrator shall have the discretion to impose a penalty on teams that violate this rule.
* Please remember to bring your own memorial to the Competition.
Preliminary Rounds Itinerary
Following is the itinerary for the Preliminary Rounds (08/02/10 - 11/02/10):
7.00 pm - Registration at CLCR2007 (Upon registration, mooters will be ushered to their respective rooms)
Note: Muslims can perform their prayers at the mosque and must be at their respective rooms by 7.45 p.m.
7.30 pm - Arrival of judges.
8.00 pm - The competition begins.
10.30 pm - The competition ends.
* It is very important for the mooters to register themselves in CLCR2007 by 7.00 p.m sharp.
Thank you.
7.00 pm - Registration at CLCR2007 (Upon registration, mooters will be ushered to their respective rooms)
Note: Muslims can perform their prayers at the mosque and must be at their respective rooms by 7.45 p.m.
7.30 pm - Arrival of judges.
8.00 pm - The competition begins.
10.30 pm - The competition ends.
* It is very important for the mooters to register themselves in CLCR2007 by 7.00 p.m sharp.
Thank you.
Feb 2, 2010
Notice
Dear all,
The exchange of memorials will be held tomorrow 3rd February 2010 during 11 a.m - 3p.m at MPBR0018 (operation room). Please be punctual. We will not entertain anyone who comes after 3 p.m.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
The exchange of memorials will be held tomorrow 3rd February 2010 during 11 a.m - 3p.m at MPBR0018 (operation room). Please be punctual. We will not entertain anyone who comes after 3 p.m.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Announcement
Dear all,
With reference to the Procedural Issues posted before this, we wish to clarify that procedural issues not to be submitted to the court, referring to procedural defects under the Rules of the High Court 1980.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
With reference to the Procedural Issues posted before this, we wish to clarify that procedural issues not to be submitted to the court, referring to procedural defects under the Rules of the High Court 1980.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Feb 1, 2010
Reminder
Dear all,
Kindly be reminded that the submission of memorials is due today at 11 a.m - 4 p.m in MPBR 0018.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Kindly be reminded that the submission of memorials is due today at 11 a.m - 4 p.m in MPBR 0018.
Thank you.
Regards,
The Organizing Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)