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