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.