MMU Law Moot Competition 2014/2015 Timetable

Law Moot 2014 / 2015 Official Timetable
Week	Date	Event	Venue
2	31 / 10 / 2014 (Fri)	Briefing + Draw Lots	FOL Workshop
		Release of Moot Question
8	2 / 12 / 2014 (Tues)	Collection of Submissions *(exchange of bundles)	FOL Workshop
9	18-19 / 12 / 2014 (Thu - Fri)	Preliminary Rounds	1) CLC 2nd floor 2) ACR 1001, 1002
10	22 / 12 / 2014 (Mon)	Announcement for Finals
11	9 / 1 / 2015 (Fri)	Collection of Submissions *(exchange of bundles)
12	17 / 1 / 2015 (Sat)	Finals	Moot court

Clarifications to Law Moot Problem (BI)

MMU Internal Law Moot Competition 2014/2015



English Language Clarifications to the Moot Problem



**Note: If the response is “No response necessary,” this does not mean that it is not a good question. It merely means that you will have to prepare your submissions without the information and generally means that I do not think the information is material to the questions posed.




Clarification Requests

Responses


Questions about the club



1. Has the club ever applied for any fundings before?

2. When was the club established?

3. clarification of the name of the society. club or society?

4. is there only two of them in the society or club?

5. When is the HUPSS established?

6. How can the university give recognition to the club when the university knows that the club is related to political club?

7. Is the Highland University Political Science Society (HUPSS) an educational association?

8. From the facts, it shows that only Lee and Wong are the members of the club. Why is it so??? Are they the only members??

9. the club Highland University Political Science Society (HUPSS) should be considered as an educational club or a which is more toward political?

10. Has the Highland University Political Science Society (HUPSS) is a club approved in writing by the Vice Chancellor?

11. What is the minimum number of member in order for a society to be approved in Highland University? Are we to assume the minimum is 2 person in order for the university to recognise the society?



Yes. It has received University funding before. No response necessary.

The name is given in the Moot Problem. Yes.

No response necessary.

No response necessary. The University approved the club.







You must determine this based on the facts given.



They are the only members because they are the only students who have chosen to be members.



You must determine this based on the facts given.







The written approval was issued by the Student

Affairs Division.







No response necessary. But the HUPSS is an approved club.









12. What is the process of approving a

club? Does the Vice Chancellor have authority to terminate any club she dislike?

13. I would like to know if the club name is Highland University Political Science Society (HUPSS) or Highland University Political Science Club ?

14. "They were also the only members of the HUPSS". This means that the club consists of two members only?

The Student Affairs Division provides written

approval to all student clubs. The University Rules do not address the Vice Chancellor’s authority to terminate a club.



It is HUPSS.







You must determine this.


Questions about the conference



1. Para 2 - the dated email was in julai, where as the event is jun. Clarify?

2. socialism is what type of activity? is it political activity

3. Thou funding not given, are they still allowed to go or the conference if self funding is obtain?

4. Is Sosialisme 2014 violates the law?

5. whether the socialism 2014 conference is related to their own benefit club (HUPSS) or themselves

6. What kind of activity do the Socialism

2014 does? Is it a debate on politics?

7. Is the conference on Socialism that going to be held in Chicago related to politic?

8. Based on the facts, both Mr Lee and Ms Wong received e-mail advertisements for Socialism 2014, a conference on Socialism to be held in Chicago, U.S., from 26-29 June 2014. The e-mail received, whether its on subscription or on coincidence ?

9. whether the conference on Socialism is on academic purpose or political purpose?

10. Whether the conference in Chicago is considered as for the academic purpose?







Look at the years.



You should research this.



They have not been prohibited from attending.







You must determine this. You must determine this.







You should research this. You should research this.



No response necessary.

















You should research this. You must determine this.


Questions about the University



1. What are the university's policies on







No response necessary. You can assume that









club fundings? (Pembahagian dana)







2. Were there any reasons provided in the notice of denial?

3. When was the university established?

4. Was the university, as a private university registered under Private Higher Educational Institutions Act

1996 (Akta Institusi Pendidikan tinggi

Swasta 1996) Act 555?

5. is that the university rules mentioned in paragraph 2 after the conversations

refer to the University Constitution

6. Is Highland University public/private?

7. Does the university dismissed the student with proper procedure? If so, what is the procedure?

8. Is there any rules and regulation in Highland University that prohibited the talk which students can joined?

9. i would like to ask about the ouster clause, whether this clause is written into the university's rules.

10. Is there any provision in the University Rules which prohibit asking for donations which is considered as an offence?

the University did not violate any of its internal

policies in determining whether to fund

HUPSS. No.



No response necessary.

You must determine this based on the facts given.









“University Rules” refer to all the documents and rules that combined make up the rules that govern the University.

Refer to the Moot Problem.

The students were expelled as is outlined in the Moot Problem. You must determine whether the procedure was proper.

None that is relevant here. No response necessary.

The University Rules do not mention student fundraising.


Questions about the Board of Directors

1. In the second last paragraph before the grounds there is a sentence that states... "the board may, but need not, choose to hear the appeal" ...we feel that we are unable to understand this sentence, may we have a clarification on that sentence on what does this sentence implies.

2. why does board of director refuse to hear the appeal?

3. Regarding the Board of Directors' refusal to hear the appeal, did the Board give any reasons behind their refusal?

4. Does the Vice Chancellor make up or is a part of the Board of Directors?



5. Was the Vice Chancellor in any part of



This means that the Board can hear the appeal if it wants. If it does not want, it does not have to hear the appeal.













No reason was given. No.



Yes, but the Vice Chancellor recused herself from participating in the decision on whether to hear the appeal in this matter.

The Vice Chancellor was not involved in









the decision of choosing the Board of

Director or was she one of the

Directors?

6. What are the grounds for the University's Board of Directors to decline hearing of the appeal.

7. Ninth Para, according to the facts, they must appeal the decision to the University Board of Directors. So is the University Board of Directors same

with the Student Disciplinary Appeal Committee as stated under Section 16B UUCA 1971.

choosing the Board members. She is on the

Board.



None were disclosed.









No response necessary. You must determine this.


Questions about the Vice Chancellor



1. Does the Vice Chancellor has the authority to dismiss students?

2. How was both the students summoned by the Vice Chancellor? Was there an official letter given to the students stating their offences?

3. There has been no clarification given by the Vice Chancellor on the status of the dismissal of the students ?

4. How long did actually Vice Chancellor gave the students to justify their situation ?

5. In regards to Vice Chancellor Chao's saying of 'So, you are members of that Political Science club thing, right? I never did like that idea', that idea was referring to the idea of 'funding', 'the Political Science Club itself', or 'the formation of the Political Science Club'.

6. Is Vice Chancellor Chao's summon on Mr Lee and Ms Wong to her office an indication of an imminent or foreseeable disciplinary action to be taken?

7. Regarding the conversation between the Vice Chancellor and the applicants, is there any further information regarding why the Vice Chancellor Chao said that she never liked the idea of the Political







You must determine this.



They were contacted by the Vice Chancellor’s office by phone to meet with the Vice Chancellor.



No response necessary.







Make reasonable assumptions based on the facts. You cannot expect an exact time period.



This is for you to interpret.





















No response necessary.













No.









Science club?

8. Letter of expel that have been receive by Mr Lee and Ms Wong is actually sent by the Vice Chancellor OR by the University Board of Directors?

9. is it the decision to punish them has made by the chancellor when the Vice Chancellor stating that "if you do not have a compelling reason, you will appropriately punish."

10. Was the letter of dismissal signed and approved by the Vice Chancellor?

11. seeking clarification on the conversation of vice chancellor chao which stated that "you must explain yourselves immediately" ,the word immediately is actually refer to how long of the period time have been given?

12. Does the Vice Chancellor have the authority to expel the students?



The letter was sent by the Vice Chancellor.









This is for you to determine.













Yes.



No response necessary. Use the facts given.

















This is for you to determine.


Questions about Mr Lee and Ms Wong

1. How old are the applicants?







2. Are the applicants Malaysian citizen?



To the extent that this is relevant, you can make reasonable assumptions based on the facts.

Yes.


Questions about the LAWASIA incident

1. Are Vera Wong's claim legit?

2. Are there any evidence or facts to proof that she is indeed a resident around the neighborhood where Mr.Lee and Miss Wong were going door-to-door?

3. Did Mr Lee and Ms Wong obtain an approval letter from the University or Student Affairs Divison when they

went door-to-door asking for funding to trip?

4. based on the facts, it was stated that one of the residents complained about the applicants visiting her home and asking for donations for the trip, was the complain done in a good way or a bad way? As in whether the complaint was done because she was not satisfied with the University for not providing their



No response necessary. No response necessary.













No.













She complained that the students were asking for money.









students with the funding? or did she

complain because the students were going from houses to houses asking for donations which she is kinda annoyed with?

5. Is it one the residence of neighborhood, Vera Wang is actually the only one

who upset regarding the Mr. Lee and Ms Wong by visit to her house to ask money for donation OR Vera Wang is actually represent behalf of the other neighborhood that are also upset after the student visit their house?

6. How does the LawAsia Moot Competition relevant to the problems that we need to submit?

7. On 24/8/2013 when Mr. Lee and Ms.

Wong walk around asking for donations from the public, did they have University's approval such as letters of authorisations or any sorts of acknowledgement?

8. Fifth para, whereby the applicants introduced themselves as the members of "Highland University Political Science Club" but in the first para, it was mentioned Highland University Political Science Society (HUPSS). So is there any difference?

















No response necessary.





















You must determine this. No.









The name is HUPSS but they introduced themselves using the word “Club.”


Questions about the court



1. Which state of Court is the High Court?

Is it at Selangor?

2. in which court the matter should be applied. Is it the High Court of Shah Alam or High COurt of Kuala Lumpur

3. i wish to know the name of the court on the cover, is selangor court or melacca court?







The High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam



See above. See above.


Questions about Student Affairs



1. Para 4 - the notice letter merely said "No funding permitted" was that the only thing written?

2. Why is the funding in not permitted for









Yes.



No reason given.









conference in the first place?

3. They were the only application that was completely denied funding. Why so?

4. Why does the university did not want to fund the club when they actually allowed to create the club ?

5. Student Affairs Division did not give clarification on why did they actually denied the funding for the application ?

6. why does the student affair division denied their funding?

7. Why the university is willing to sponsor them to moot competition rather than sponsor them to the conference at Chicago?

8. Since the UUCA is a federal law that prohibited students to associates with societies, and the HUPSS is a society in the university, why the student affairs division denying their application?



No reason given. No reason given.



No.







No reason given. No reason given.







No reason given.


Questions about dates



1. the date on which the application of Judicial Review was made to the High Court. The forth paragraph from the end of the problem states that - Application for Judicial Review No.

25-10-2014. Does 25-10-2014 signifies the date of application of Judicial Review or mere file number?

2. When or What is the DATE of the APPEAL made by Mr Lee and Ms Wong to the University Board of Directors?

3. when does mr lee and mrs wong make the appeal to the high court?

4. The date they appealed to the Board.

5. The date the Board refused the appeal.

6. after the letter of expel received by Mr Lee and Miss Wong, how many days did they took to make the appeal to the Board of Director of the University?

7. when MR Lee and Ms Wong submit the appeal to the University of Directors is actually after how many









This is the case number.

















Two weeks after receipt of the letters of expulsion.



No response necessary. See above.

No response necessary. See above.









See above.









days after they received the letter from

Highland University?




Questions about the statute



1. Whether Section 15 of the AUKU is up to amendment 2013 or not?

2. Which statute was referred when the vice chancellor expelled the applicants?

3. Is the UUCA 1971 and AUKU 1971 is the same act? For BM mooters, can we use AUKU 1971?

4. Sir, the section is question, is it S.15A(1) specifically, or S.15A with it's subsequent sub-sections [A(1), A(2), A(3), A(4), A(5)]?







Use the law that would be applicable if this were a real case.

Refer to the Moot Problem. Yes, they are the same. Yes.



You must determine this.


Questions about procedure

1. which court we refer to?

2. Is this question to Court of Appeal?

Because the facts shows that the students are applying for judicial review in the High Court...so is not an appeal case?

3. Sir, so shouldn't it be Bruce Lee & Anna Wong v Rosalind Chao, instead of Highland University?

4. Sir, so is this case of a first instance, thus it's a plaintiff/defendant & rather, not applicant/respondent?

5. Sir, on the cover, must we state as "In the High Court of Malaysia [at Melaka]"

6. Is this a case at the court at first instance which is in the High Court or is this an appeal case?

7. Whether the Application for Judicial

Review No. 25-10-2014 is meant to be

25-10-2014 (limitation for judicial review is 3 months).

8. since the subject matter in this case is related to the Federal Constitution, which supposed to be heard only in the Federal Court. However, the moot question stated that 'the parties now



Please see above.

Refer to the Moot Problem.













No.







Refer to the Moot Problem. Please see above.

Refer to the Moot Problem.







This is the case number. I have confirmed with the Malaysian lecturer on procedure that it is proper.



Refer to the Moot Problem and the answers above.









appear before the High Court'.

Therefore, which court do we have to put at the cover page

9. At which High Court of Malaya are we filing the Application?

10. Is the moot problem case of first instance?









Please see above.



Refer to the Moot Problem.


Legal questions

1. Are other countries legislation referable in the case matter as such expelling students.

2. whether or not the funding that mr lee and miss wong is a related to public funding or private funding?

3. Can the provisions under the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971(UUCA) be overruled by the University rules?

4. Can the universities restrict their students’ involvement in left wing or radical activities or convention?

5. Is there any procedure for the students in using the university’s name in order to raise funding in public on their personal accord intention?

6. How can the conference link to the right in Article 10 of Federal Constitution?

7. Can we assume that Federal law which is the UUCA overruled the University's regulation?

8. may i use assumption for the displinary procedure for Highland University by referring to 3-4 public university law, and see the similarity between these 3-4 university and assume that Highland university has a same disciplinary procedures

9. My question relates to the first ground.

It states: "whether the decision by the university to expel the applicants was invalid on the grounds of procedural impropriety and/ or illegality." The procedure above refers to 1) only the part where the the Vice Chancellor



You must determine this. You must determine this. You must determine this.



You must determine this.









You must determine this. There are no procedures in the Highland University Rules.







You must determine this. You must determine this.



You must determine whether your

“assumption” is appropriate.

















You must determine this.









gave them very little time to explain

themselves, or, 2) only the part on the refusal of the Board of Directors to hear the appeal, or, 3) both?

10. Is Highland University, being a university bound to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA)

?

11. Can the University apply the UCCA in expelling the students even if the University Rules do not mention?















You must determine this.









You must determine this.


Interpretation questions

1. If the facts of the moot problem is silent, can I assume?









2. Can fundraising be considered as an offence under the University rules?

3. Based on the facts, within 7 days period after confrontation with vice

chancellor, can the facts be assumed that they choose to not defend themselves by giving any relevant grounds for the funding ?

4. Based on the facts, can we assume that the restriction on student’s body/organization to collect money infringed the right to perform the activity of association?

5. When the Board of Directors rejected the hear Mr Lee and Ms Wong's appeal for dismissal, is it safe to presume that the Board of Directors had a responsibility to explain as to why a hearing was not approved and failed to explain the said decision?







6. whether we can make some minor assumptions to the moot problem

7. For clarification of the Malay Moot, the facts of the moot question stated that

Mr Lee and Ms Wong were given one



In all moot problems, you must make certain assumptions. I explained this in class. The critical point is that your assumptions must be REASONABLE based on the facts.



You must determine this.







See comment above regarding assumptions.















This is not an assumption. It is an argument.









You must determine whether there was a responsibility. You cannot just presume things. You need to research to learn about the

Board’s responsibilities. If the laws and rules are silent, you must make arguments about what the silence means and whether other provisions address the issue. These are not presumptions.



Please see my comments above regarding assumptions.







In all moot problems, you must make certain









week period before they received the

letter which expelled them from the university. However, the facts do not explain whether they know that they have the right to explain themselves in the one week period. The facts also silent that whether the Vice Chancellor has inform Mr. Lee and Ms Wong that if they do not explain themselves in the one week time, they will be expelled. Therefore, can I presume that both Mr. Lee and Ms Wong do not know that they have the right to hearing and right to explain themselves in the one week time.

8. Why on 15/8/2013 STAD rejected the application for funding merely by stating "No funding permitted", are allowed to create our own reasons?

9. What amounts to 'appropriately punished', as stated by Vice Chancellor Chao? Should we draw our own assumptions?

10. Based on the facts (first page) it is stated that Vice Chancellor Chao summoner Mr Lee and Ms Wong to her offices, "AFTER SOME PLEASANTRIES, the following conversation took place. My question is whether the word pleasantries is

relevant to the case, and outcome of the judgmnt ??

11. what does it mean by "procedural impropriety and/ or illegality??

12. I would like clarification if ground 1 is about administrative law or constitutional law?

assumptions. I explained this in class. The

critical point is that your assumptions must be

REASONABLE based on the facts.





































No. You cannot create your own reasons. No reasons were given. You have to deal with that fact.



You should not “assume” anything. You can interpret the words but your interpretations must be based on the facts given and the law.



This is for you to determine.























This is for you to determine. This is for you to determine.


Miscellaneous questions

1. Was there a board of members or committee formed to investigate the offences?

2. There has been no clarification given on the status of “ committing an offence”?

3. What is the moot number which have to be in the cover page







The procedure followed by the University is as stated in the facts of the Moot Problem.



That is correct. There is no clarification. Use the case number.





4. Do we have to put our firm's name at the bottom of cover page?

5. is it by stating "committing any offence" can be included offences under UUCA even it did not mention

6. Was the letter given to the students acted as a notice or a final letter ?




You can put a fictional firm name if you wish. Do not put any of your real names.



This is for you to determine.





The letter was a letter notifying the students that they were expelled.

Moot Problem (BI)

MOOT PROBLEM 2014

Bruce Lee & Anna Wong v Highland University

Bruce Lee (Mr Lee) and Anna Wong (Ms Wong) were friends and final-year law students at
Highland University, a public university in Selangor. They were also the only members of the
Highland University Political Science Society (HUPSS), a club recognized and approved by the
University.

In July 2013, both Mr Lee and Ms Wong received e-mail advertisements for Socialism 2014, a
conference on Socialism to be held in Chicago, U.S., from 26-29 June 2014. The conference’s
website states:

Socialism 2014 is a four-day conference bringing together hundreds of
socialists and radical activists from around the country to take part in
discussions about Marxism, working-class history, and the debates and
strategies for organizing today. (http://www.socialismconference.org/abouts14/)

On 1 August 2013, Mr Lee and Ms Wong together submitted an application on behalf of HUPSS
for funding for the trip to Chicago from the Student Affairs Division, which was responsible for
allocating funding among the University’s student clubs.

On 15 August, they received a reply from the Student Affairs Division denying the application.
The denial notice merely said, “No funding permitted.” University records show that this was the
only student application of 2013 that was completely denied funding.

Meanwhile, Mr Lee and Ms Wong had been selected to be members of the mooting team
representing the University in the LAWASIA Moot Court Competition held in Kuala Lumpur.

On 24 August 2013, the Highland mooting team attended the LAWASIA competition. The
University sponsored half of the team’s expenses, which included food, accommodation,
registration fees, and petrol costs. The other half was paid by the student participants. The
participants drove their own cars to the competition. The coach/trainer was a University lecturer.

During the evening after the first day of competition, Mr Lee and Ms Wong decided to walk
around a neighbourhood near the competition site. They went door-to-door asking for money to
help fund the trip to Socialism 2014. When someone answered their knocking, they would
explain that they were members of the Highland University Political Science Club and they were
looking for donations to fund the trip to Socialism 2014.

One of the residents of the neighbourhood, Vera Wang, was quite upset after the students visited
her house. On 29 August 2013, she called the Vice Chancellor of the University, Rosalind Chao,
to complain.

On 2 September 2013, Vice Chancellor Chao summoned Mr Lee and Ms Wong to her office.
After some pleasantries, the following conversation took place:

Vice Chancellor Chao: “So, you are members of that Political Science club thing, right? I never
did like that idea.”

Ms Wong: “Yes.”

Vice Chancellor Chao: “I have received a complaint from a resident in KL that you visited her
home asking for donations for a trip you are planning to Chicago for some Socialist conference.
Is this true?”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Vice Chancellor Chao: “This is prohibited behaviour. You must explain yourselves immediately.
If you do not have a compelling reason, you will be appropriately punished. Make it quick
because I have a meeting in five minutes.”

Mr Lee and Ms Wong said nothing. After some awkward silence, the Vice Chancellor dismissed
the students from her office.

One week later, Mr Lee and Ms Wong received letters sent by post to their respective homes
informing them that they had been expelled from the University for violating Section 15A(1) of
the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA). The University rules do not mention
the UUCA nor do they mention student fundraising. They do provide, however, that students
may be expelled for “committing any offence.”

Mr Lee and Ms Wong attempted to appeal the Vice Chancellor’s decision through the University
procedures. The procedures provide that any appeal of a Vice Chancellor’s decision may be
made to the University Board of Directors. The Board may, but need not, choose to hear the
appeal. The Board of Directors refused to hear the appeal.

Mr Lee and Ms Wong are challenging the Vice Chancellor’s decision by applying for judicial
review in the High Court. In the High Court (Application for Judicial Review No. 25-10-2014),
the following questions are posed:

1. Whether the decision by the University to expel the applicants was invalid on the grounds
of procedural impropriety and/or illegality.

2. Whether Section 15A of the UUCA is unconstitutional as it violates the right to freedom
of speech, assembly and/or association provided for by Article 10(1) of the Federal
Constitution.

The parties now appear before the High Court on the two questions posed.

Clarification to the Law Moot Question (BM)

MMU Internal Law Moot Competition 2014/2015

Malaysian Language Clarification Requests to the Moot Problem

**Note: If the response is “No response necessary,” this does not mean that it is not a good question. It merely means that you will have to prepare your submissions without the information and generally means that I do not think the information is material to the questions posed.

1.        Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan "melakukan sebarang kesalahan"? Adakah ia dirujuk kepada perbuatan memunggut kutipan duit oleh pelajar atau menghadiri persidangan Sosialis di Chicago atau kedua-duanya?

What do you mean by “committing any offence”? Is it referred to students’ action  of  collecting  donation  or  attending  the  Socialism  conference  in Chicago or both?

You must determine this.

2.        Apakah  prosedur  atau  tatatertib  membuang  pelajar  di  Universiti  Highland?

Adakah ia selaras dengan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti 1971?

What is the procedure to expel students from Highland University? Is it consistent with UUCA?

The procedure used in this case was consistent with the internal University procedures. You must determine the answer to the second question.

1.        Fakta mengatakan bahawa Encik Lee dan Cik Wong bercadang untuk membuat rayuan tentang keputusan Naib Canselor kepada Lembaga Pengarah. Tetapi, fakta tidak mengatakan bahawa mereka membuat rayuan tersebut pada hari yang ke berapa selepas menerima surat di buang universiti.

When did Mr. Lee and Ms. Wong appeal to the university after receiving the expulsion letter?

This question is answered in the English clarifications.

1.        Sejak bila HUPPS diiktiraf dan diluluskan oleh pihak universiti?

When did HUPPS been approved and recognized by the university?

No response necessary.

2.        Apakah releven persidangan itu pada masyarakat?

What is the relevancy of the conference to society?

You must determine this.

3.        Berapa banyak dana yang mereka mohon daripada STAD?

How much is the amount of fund that they applied from STAD?

The full amount.

4.        Kenapa  pembiayaan  itu  dinafikan  sedangkan  pembiayaan  lain  tidak  pernah dinafikan?

Why this funding application been denied by the university as other funding is not denied?

No reason was given.

5.  Adakah   Bruce   Lee   dan   Anna   Wong   mempunyai   apa-apa   kuasa   yang membenarkan mereka untuk meminta pembiayaan dari pintu ke pintu?

Did they get any authority to collect money from door-to door?

No.

6.  Apakah kewarganegaraan Bruce Lee dan Anna Wong?

What are their nationalities?

Malaysian.

7.  Apakah bukti yang menunjukkan aduan yang dibuat oleh Vera Wang ?

Is there any evidence to confirm that there was a complaint made by Vera

Wang?

You can assume that the facts are true.

8.  Apakah yang dimaksudkan oleh Naib Canselor Chao apabila beliau mengatakan beliau tidak pernah suka idea tersebut?

What is the intention of Vice Chansellor Chao when she mentions “I never did like the idea”?

You must interpret this.

9.  Apakah tindakan yang akan dikenakan?

What is the action imposed to?

This question is unclear. Malaysian lecturers have confirmed. Clarification was requested from student but none given.

10. Apakah   peraturan   universiti   kerana   mereka   tidak   menyebut   AUKU   atau pengumpulan dana pelajar?

What is the University’s rule as it does not mention the UUCA nor do they mention student fundraising?

You must draft your submissions without knowing all the University Rules. You must work with the ones given.

11. Apakah kesalahan yang mereka telah lakukan?

What offence been committed by them?

You must determine this.

12. Apakah sebab untuk pihak universiti menafikan rayuan untuk didengar?

What are the reasons given by the university when denying their appeal from being heard?

No reason was given. It was not the University. It was the Board of Directors.

13. Apakah  prosedur  oleh  pihak  universiti  untuk  membuang  pelajar  universiti tersebut?

What are the procedures of expelling students from the university?

The procedures in this case complied with the internal University Rules.

14. Adakah prosedur tersebut tertulis di dalam undang undang pihak universiti?

Did the procedures been written in the university’s rules?

Yes.

15. Adakah mereka mengikut prosedur tersebut?

Did they follow the procedures?

Yes.

16. Mengikut fakta kes, permohonan yang dihantar oleh Encik Lee dan Cik Wong kepada Bahagian Hal Ehwal Pelajar telah ditolak dimana notis penolakan menyatakan, “ Pembiayaan tidak diluluskan.” Adakah sebarang alasan diberikan oleh pihak tersebut mengenai sebab atau alasan mengapa pembiayaan itu tidak diluluskan?

As per the facts, the application of funding was sent to the STAD but it was later denied. The denial notice stated “No funding permitted.” Did the university give any reasons for this (the denial/ rejection)?

No.

17. Kenapa hanya mereka,  Bruce  Lee  dan  Anna Wong yang menjadi ahli  kelab tersebut?

Why only two of them were the members of the Club?

Because there were only two.

18. Adakah kerana club tersebut tidak memberi apa-apa kebaikan kepada pelajar ?

Is it because the Club did not give any benefit to students?

You should interpret whether this is true based on the facts.

19. Berdasarkan fakta yang mengatakan bahawa Naib Canselor perlu ke mesyuarat dalam masa 5 minit, adakah masa yang diberikan kepada mereka berdua hanyalah sekejap sahaja ?

The facts did mention that the Vice Chacellor needs to attend meeting within

5 minutes, does this means that the time given to them is just for a while/ not long?

You should interpret the time from the facts given.

20. Perlukah  Lembaga  Pengarah  memberikan alasan  mengapa  beliau  tidak  mahu mendegar rayuan mereka ?

Did the Board of Directors need to give reasons as to why they refused to hear the appeal?

They did not give reasons. The University complied with its own University Rules with respect to the procedure undertaken in this case.

21. Apakah maksud " dengan melakukan sebarang kesalahan ". Adakah ia merupakan satu kesalahan yang amat besar sehingga mereka perlu dibuang universiti ?

What is the meaning of “committing any offence”? Did this mean they have done serious offence that lead to expulsion from the university?

You must determine this.

22. Bagaimana universiti tersebut membenarkan persatuan tersebut apabila university berkenaan mengetahui tentang penglibatan persatuan tersebut dalam isu – isu politik ?

Why  the  university  did  approved  and  recognised  the  club  when  the university have knowledge that the club involvement in politics?

No response necessary.

23. Mengapa universiti tersebut tidak menghulurkan bantuan wang kepada persatuan tersebut apabila universiti tersebut membenarkan pembukaan persatuan tersebut ? Why the university denied allocation of funds to the club when the university approved the club to be operated in the university?

No response necessary.

24. Tiada sebarang kenyataan yang diberikan tentang status “melakukan sebarang kesalahan”. Penjelasan secara mendalam diperlukan ?

No further explanation/ statement relation to the status of “committing any offence” Detail explanation is needed?

The University Rules do not give any detailed explanation.

25. Naib  Cancelor  tidak  memberikan sebarang penjelasan  mengenai  pembuangan pelajar berkenaan ?

The Vice Chancellor did not give explanation on why the students were been expelled?

Refer to the facts.

26. Bahagian Hal Ehwal Pelajar tidak memberikan sebarang penjelasan mengenai penolakan permohonan yang dilakukan pelajar- pelajar tersebut ?

No explanation given by STAD relating to the denial of application of fund allocation?

No.

27. Berapa lama masa yang diberikan oleh Naib Canselor kepada pelajar – pelajar berkenaan untuk menjelaskan situasi mereka?

How long was the time given by the Vice Chancellor to the students to explain their situations?

You must infer from the facts.

28. Adakah Semakan Kehakiman kes ini dikemukakan ke Mahkamah Tinggi Shah

Alam? Jika tidak, Mahkamah Tinggi manakah yang kes ini dikemukakan?

Did the judicial review application been filed in Shah Alam High Court? If no, in which High Court did the application been filed?

Yes, Shah Alam.

29. Adakah Sosialisme 2014 merupakan persidangan yang berkaitan dengan politik atau persidangan tersebut hanya berkaitan dengan perbincangan akademik?

Did the Socialism conference 2014 related to political or academic discussions?

You must determine this.

30. Berapakah umur pemohon-pemohon dalam kes ini?

How old is the applicant in this case?

This question is answered in the English clarifications.

31. Fakta mengatakan bahawa Encik Lee dan Cik Wong bercadang untuk membuat rayuan tentang keputusan Naib Canselor kepada Lembaga Pengarah. Tetapi, fakta tidak mengatakan bahawa mereka membuat rayuan tersebut pada hari yang ke berapa selepas menerima surat di buang universiti.

When did they appeal to the university after receiving the expulsion letter?

This question is answered in the English clarifications.

32. "Dalam  fakta  mut  hanya  mengatakan  bahawa  Bruce  Lee  dan  Anna  Wong melanggar 15A dalam UUCA, namun demikian fakta tidak menyatakan adakah mereka didakwa oleh pendakwa raya dan disabitkan kesalahan oleh Mahkamah? " “ The facts did mention that Mr. Lee and Ms. Wong violated Section 15A of the UUCA, however the facts is silent on whether they been charged by the prosecution and been convicted by the Court?”

They have not been charged or convicted.

33. Dalam  persoalan  pertama  soalan  mut,  persoalannya ialah  samaada  keputusan universiti  untuk  membuang  permohon-pemohon adalah  tidak  sah  atas  alasan alasan ketidakpatuhan prosedur...

In the first moot problem, the question is whether the decision by the University to expel the applicants was invalid on the grounds of procedural impropriety …

34. Soalan kami ialah, prosedur yang disebutkan dalam persoalan pertama soalan mut merujukkan kepada apa prosedur?

The procedure in the first moot question is referred to what procedures?

I assume the previous two questions are connected. You must determine this.

35. Adakah  sememangnya  mereka  berdua  sahaja  ahli   persatuan  sains   politik kemasyarakatan  Universiti  Highland?  Adakah  tiada  ahli  lain  selain  mereka berdua?

Is it only two of them are the members of the Club? Are there any other members in the club?

Please refer to the facts.

36. Bolehkah meletakkan petikan kes Bahasa Inggeris di dalam memorial Bahasa

Malaysia?

Can we place the English moot problem in the B.M. moot memorial?

You should place the BM Moot Problem in the BM memorial.

37. Dalam kes ini ada menyatakan, “…mereka telah dibuang dari university kerana melanggar S 15 A (1) Akta Universiti-universiti dan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti 1971”. Persoalannya adakah Seksyen tersebut merujuk kepada Akta Universiti-universiti atau pun Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU)?

Moot problem did mention that “ … they being expelled from the University for violating Section 15A(1) of the Universities and University Colleges Act

1971 (UUCA).” The question is whether that section referred to Universities

Act or University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA)?

Yes.

38. Apa jenis “Citation” yang digunakan untuk memorial.

What is the ‘citation’ used for the memorial.

You should use the format adopted by FOL: OSCOLA.

39. Adakah versi Akta Universiti – Universiti dan Akta Universiti dan Kolej

1971 (“UUCA”) ini boleh dirujuk. Saya menganggap versi Akta ini versi terbaru. Can we refer to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA). I assume the version of the Act is the new version?

Use the applicable law as if this were a real case.

40. The second clarification is that since the malay moot question stated that the Lembaga Pengarah University "boleh, tidak semestinya, memilih " untuk mendengar rayuan ... , does it mean that the Lembaga Pengarah sometimes have the right to choose and sometimes do not have the right to choose to hear .. and if it is not in their discretionary power to choose, then whether this case is the type that they have the right to choose to hear or do not have the right to choose to hear which it must be heard by the Lembaga Pengarah.

The second clarification is that since the malay moot question stated that the The Board may, but need not, choose to hear the appeal ...,  does it mean that the Lembaga Pengarah sometimes have the right to choose and sometimes do not have the right to choose to hear .. and if it is not in their discretionary power to choose, then whether this case is the type that they have the right to choose to hear or do not have the right to choose to hear which it must be heard by the Lembaga Pengarah.

This means that the Board can hear the appeal if it wants. If it does not want, it does not have to hear the appeal.

41. From the BM version of mooting question, it is stated  Akta Universiti-Universiti dan Akta Universiti dan Kolej 1971 (UUCA). However, the  statute that i found is named as Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti 1971 (AUKU). So, which name should i use in my submission? Is the one in the mooting question wrong?

From the B.M. version of mooting question, it is stated that Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA). However, the statute that I found is named as Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti 1971 (AUKU). So which name should I use in my submission? Is the one in mooting question wrong?

Please use AUKU instead of UUCA