FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials

Pages:   || 2 | 3 |

«Final Rules for the 8th NUJS-Herbert Smith Freehills National Moot Court Competition, 2015 – 2016 RULE 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. The administrator of ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Final Rules for the 8th NUJS-Herbert Smith Freehills National Moot Court

Competition, 2015 – 2016


1.1. The administrator of the Competition shall be the Competition Committee (the

“CC”) as constituted by the MCS.

1.2. The Competition shall be conducted in accordance with these Rules, and all teams

and participants shall be presumed to have read and understood these Rules.


1. 2.1.Team Member Eligibility All students enrolled on a full-time or part-time basis in either a 3-year LLB course or a 5-year integrated BA LLB (or similar) course at the time of the competition are eligible to compete in the Competition, on being sent an invite.

Each college or university may enter only one team.

2. 2.2.Team Composition and Selection A Team shall be ordinarily composed of three (3) members, with two Oralists and one Researcher. A two-member team comprising of only two Oralists with no Researcher will also be permitted. A minimum of two members will thus be required for each team. Teams wishing to bring additional members as observers shall be required to intimate the CC at the earliest but the same shall however not be eligible for a certificate.

3. 2.3. Outside Assistance to Teams All research, writing and editing must be solely the product of Team members.

4. 2.4. Use of Opposing Team's Written Submissions No Team shall be allowed to view or otherwise become privy to any Written Submission other than the respective Appellant and Respondent written submissions of scheduled opposing Teams in the course of the Competition.


5. 3.1 Registering Names of Team Members Each Team shall submit all Team members' names to the CC by December 10, 2015. Registration can be done either through email or post. The CC shall intimate the concerned school of the receipt of the application.

Team members' names shall be clearly written or typed on the form, with attention given to the spelling of each Team member's name. Names shall appear in the manner that Team members wish them to appear on their participation certificates.

6. 3.2. Team Number as Identification Each Team shall be assigned a Team Number selected by the CC Teams shall use their Team Numbers for identification purposes.

Names of participants or their colleges may not appear on or within the Written Submissions. Signature pages are prohibited.

RULE 4: JUDGES 7. 4.1 Three Judge Panels: Three (3) judge panels shall be utilized whenever possible, except in the preliminary rounds. No judge will be directly affiliated with any Team participating in the round at which they are judging. In extenuating circumstances, the CC may authorize panels of two (2) judges. The final rounds of the competition will be judged by a larger, and odd-numbered bench.

8. 4.2 Anonymity of Teams The identity of a Team shall be kept completely confidential during the Competition. Although judges are allowed to know the identities of individual participants, the identity of the Universities the participants represent will not be revealed to the judges.

9. 4.3 Prior Viewing of Teams Judges should not view a Team, which they have viewed in a previous Round of the Competition. If a judge must view a Team twice, the CC shall strive to ensure that the judge views the Team’s opposite side.

10. 4.4. Feedback by Judges Judges in any Round of the Competition are encouraged to provide direct feedback to Teams regarding the Teams' performance at the completion of the Round. Judges shall not reveal to any Team the results of their individual determinations or the Team’s Scores.


Teams may submit written requests for clarifications of the Moot Problem or these Rules.

Requests for such clarifications must be received by the CC by December 13, 2015.

Teams may submit requests for clarifications by post or by email.

All clarifications to legitimate requests will be summarised and posted to the participating colleges by December 20, 2015. If however, the college has failed to provide the CC with the details of a contact person, the CC cannot guarantee the delivery of the clarifications and corrections.

–  –  –

11. 6.1 Submission of Written submissions All Written submissions must conform to the following general requirements. Teams will be penalized for failure to abide by these requirements.

Each team shall prepare an Appellant and a Respondent Written submission. Each Team participating in the Competition must submit 6 hard copies (printed or photocopied, black print on a white background) and one soft copy, (to be emailed to NUJS, the software used should be Microsoft Word 2007 or above or compatible software, entries in PDF format will not be accepted) of the appellant as well as the respondent Written Submission.

Teams shall mail Written Submissions by speed post or registered mail and postmarked no later than February 10th 2016 for teams being invited. The Written Submission in soft copy must be identical to the hard copy of the Written Submission. Teams that fail to mail Written Submissions on time will be penalized. Equipment failure or problems, including computer disk failure, will not be considered an excuse for improper formatting or late mailing of Written Submissions. Teams must also send one soft copy of the Written Submissions as an email attachment by February 10th, 2016 to nujsmcs@gmail.com.

Once submitted to the CC, Written Submissions may not be altered. If pages are inadvertently left out in the collating process, the CC may allow a Team to correct the deficiency.

12. 6.2 Format of Written submissions Written Submissions must be typed and reproduced on white standard A4 paper (21 x 29 3/4 centimetres) except for the covers, where coloured paper must be used. The font and size of the text of all parts of the Written submission (except the cover page), must be in Times New Roman 12-point.

Footnotes may be in Font size 10. The text of all parts of each Written submission must have one and a half spacing, except that (a) the text of footnotes and headings may be single-spaced, but there must be double-spacing between separate footnotes, and between each heading and the body-text of the Written submission and (b) quotations to sources outside of the Written submission of 50 words or more in any part of the Written submission shall be block quoted (i.e. right and left indented) and may be single-spaced.

13. 6.3 Description of the Written Submission 6.3.1 Parts of the Written Submission

The Written Submission shall consist of the following parts:

i. Table of Contents;

ii. Index of Authorities;

iii. Statement of Jurisdiction;

iv. Questions Presented;

v. Statement of Facts;

vi. Summary of Pleadings;

vii. Pleadings, including the Conclusion/Prayer for Relief; and viii. Appendix (Optional).

6.3.2 Legal Argument Limited to Pleadings Section Substantive, affirmative legal argument or legal interpretation of the facts of the Moot Problem may only be presented in the “Pleadings” section of the written submission, including the conclusion/prayer for relief (except insofar as such argument may be summarised in the “Summary of Pleadings” or anticipated in the “Questions Presented”). Teams which include arguments or legal interpretation in any other part of the written submission shall be penalised.

6.3.3 Index of Authorities Each Written Submission shall include an “Index of Authorities.” The Index of Authorities shall contain a list of all legal authorities cited in any section of the Written Submission. This list shall include a description of each authority adequate to allow a reasonable reader to identify and locate the authority in a publication of general circulation.

6.3.4 Statement of the Facts Each Written Submission shall include a full “Statement of the Facts.” The Statement of the Facts shall be limited to the stipulated facts and necessary inferences from the problem and any clarifications to the same. The Statement of the Facts must not include unsupported facts, distortions of stated facts, argumentative statements, or legal conclusions.

6.3.5 Summary of the Pleadings Each Written Submission shall include a “Summary of the Pleadings.” The Summary of the Pleadings shall consist of a substantive summary of the “Pleadings” section of the Written Submission in paragraph form, rather than a simple reproduction of the headings contained in the Pleadings section.

6.3.6. Pleadings & Prayer The pleadings shall contain the substantive arguments with appropriate citations. The teams must endeavour to follow a uniform method of citation.

The prayer shall be the effective remedies requested in the pleadings.

6.3.7. Appendix All teams have the option of including an appendix. The appendix may contain all relevant provisions of law and a summary of important judgements cited if any. The appendix shall not exceed 10 pages and should follow the format of the rest of the written submission.

14. 6.4 Length The “Pleadings” section of the Written Submission, including footnotes or endnotes which refer to the “Pleadings” section of the Written Submission, and the Prayer may have no more than 7000 words.

15. 6.5 Margins Each page of the Written submissions (regardless of content) shall have margins of at least one inch, or two point six (2.6) centimetres, on all sides, excluding page numbers.

16. 6.6 Covers 6.6.1 Different-coloured Covers Each Team must distinguish its Appellant Written Submission from its Respondent Written Submission by submitting each with a differentcoloured, non-white cover. The colours chosen by the Team to distinguish Appellant and Respondent written submissions are to be as follows: Blue for Appellant and Red for Respondent.

6.6.2 Information Contained on Cover of Written submission Each Written submission should bear on its cover the following, and only the following: (a) the Team Number (to be inserted by the CC); (b) the name of the court; (c) the name of the parties;

(d) the nature of the case (Civil/ Criminal/ Writ/ SLP etc.); and (e) the title of the document (i.e., "Written submission for Respondent" or "Written submission for Appellant").

17. 6.7 Binding Written submissions must be fastened by ring, spiral or comb binding along the left side of the written submission. No other form of binding including stapling or book-binding is permitted.

–  –  –

18. 7.1 General Procedures Each Oral Round of the Competition shall consist of ninety (90) minutes of oral pleadings. Appellant and Respondent shall be allotted forty-five (45) minutes each. Two (2) members, and no more than two (2) members, from each Team shall make oral presentations during the round. Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each Team shall indicate to the Court Clerk how it wishes to allocate its 45 minutes among (a) its first Speaker, (b) its second Speaker, and (c) rebuttal (for Appellant) or surrebuttal (for Respondent). No single Speaker shall plead more than twenty-five (25) minutes, including rebuttal or surrebuttal. Any Team member may act as a Speaker during any round of the Competition.

7.1.1 Extension of Time at Judges' Discretion Judges may, at their discretion, extend total Team oral argument time beyond the forty-five (45) minute allocation, up to an additional five (5) minutes per Team. Speakers asked to further expand upon arguments may, in this instance, appear for more than the twenty-five (25) minute individual limit.

19. 7.2 Order of Submission The order of the oral submissions in each Round at all

levels of the Competition shall be:

Appellant 1 -- Appellant 2 -- Respondent 1 -- Respondent 2 -- Rebuttal (Appellant 1 or 2) -- Surrebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2).

Each Team may reserve up to five (5) minutes for rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a courtesy to the judges, Teams should announce whether they intend to reserve time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral argument, and how much time they intend to reserve. Only one Team member may deliver the rebuttal or surrebuttal.

20. 7.3 Ex Parte Procedure In extreme circumstances, such as when a Team fails to appear for a scheduled Oral Round, the CC, after waiting fifteen (15) minutes, may allow the Oral Round to proceed ex parte. In an ex parte proceeding, the attending Team presents its oral pleading, which is scored by the judges to the extent possible as if the absent Team had been present and arguing. In such a case, the Team that fails to appear for the scheduled Round forfeits all six (6) of the Round's Oral Round Points.

21. 7.4 Team Members During each Oral Round, one (1) additional Team member may sit at the counsel table with the two (2) Speakers. The person sitting shall be one of the Team members registered pursuant to Rule 3.1.

22. 7.5 Competition Communications Oral communications during the Oral Round shall be strictly limited to the following. Any Team which engages in communications not listed in this Rule shall be penalised.

7.5.1. Oral Courtroom Communication between Counsel and Judges Each Speaker designated to present oral pleadings may communicate with the judges, and the judges may communicate with that Speaker, during the Speaker’s allotted time, and pursuant to Rule 7.1. In addition, in extraordinary circumstances, the judges may communicate directly with either Team’s counsel table (for example, to clarify the spelling of a Speaker’s name or to request that a Team remain quiet during its opponent’s oral presentation).

7.5.2 Oral Courtroom Communication and Activity at Counsel Table Every courtesy shall be given to Speakers during oral argument. Communication at the counsel table shall be in writing to prevent disruption, and Teams shall avoid all unnecessary noise, outbursts, or other inappropriate behaviour which distracts from the argument in progress. Any Penalties imposed under this Rule shall be deducted from the Oral Scores of both Speakers of the offending Team.

Pages:   || 2 | 3 |

Similar works:

«REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 560 September Term, 2002 ARTHUR J. HOFFMAN, ET AL. v. TOYOME STAMPER, ET AL. Kenney, Eyler, Deborah S., Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J. Filed: February 27, 2004 In a civil case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a jury found Robert Beeman (“Beeman”), Suzanne Beeman, and their company, A Home of Your Own, Inc. (“AHOYO”), liable for conspiracy to defraud, fraud, and...»

«Paullin et al. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics Volume 19, 2013 http://acousticalsociety.org/ ICA 2013 Montreal Montreal, Canada 2 7 June 2013 Speech Communication Session 2aSC: Linking Perception and Production (Poster Session) 2aSC18. Relationship between articulation and mispronunciation detection in children with speech delay: Perception of unfamiliar speech vs. their own speech Mark Paullin, Kyoko Nagao and H Bunnell*​ ​ *Corresponding author's address: bunnell@asel.udel.edu We...»

«Translated excerpt Richard von Schirach Die Nacht der Physiker. Heisenberg, Hahn, Weizsäcker und die deutsche Bombe Berenberg Verlag, Berlin 2013 ISBN 978-3-937384-54-2 pp. 11-28 Richard von Schirach The Night of the Physicists. Operation Epsilon: Heisenberg, Hahn, Weizsäcker and the German bomb Translated by Simon Pare Haus Publishing Ltd, London 2014 ISBN 978-1-908323-56-9 pp. 1-18 © 2014 Haus Publishing Ltd, London Werner Heisenberg, 1936. © 2013 Haus Publishing Ltd, London PROLOGUE The...»

«National Aeronautics and Space Administration NPP npoess preparatory project Press Kit Building a Bridge to a New Era of Earth Observations October 2011 www.nasa.gov NPP NPOESS Preparatory Project Table of Contents NPP Media Contacts................................................. 1 Media Services Information............................................ 2 NPP Press Release..................»

«Supreme Court of the Philippines Philippine Judicial Academy PHILJA Fax/Electronic Alerts Issue 04-09 September 2004 Judges; Intemperate speech; irrelevant opinion Judges should refrain from expressing irrelevant opinions in their decisions which may only reflect unfavorably upon their competence and the propriety of their judicial actuations. Moreover, intemperate speech detracts from the equanimity and judiciousness that should be the constant hallmarks of a dispenser of justice. (AM No....»

«Transboundary Haze: How Might The Singapore Government Minimise Its Occurrence? The Haze Returns, Again At noon on 21 June 2013, the three-hour Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) 1 reading in Singapore hit an all-time hazardous high of 401. 2 This came after more than a week of steadily worsening haze from forest fires in Indonesia’s Riau Province, which had shrouded Singapore with a thick, acrid layer of pollutants. Singapore is no stranger to the haze. Transboundary haze, caused by the...»


«Hard Words from the Prophets Jeremiah 16:1-4, 9-13, Revelation 3:14-22, Matthew 23:29-39 Rev. Peter Sawtell, Eco-Justice Ministries ministry@eco-justice.org This morning, we heard three texts that are rarely used in sermons. None of these passages ever appear in the Revised Common Lectionary, so many pastors never have the opportunity to wrestle with them. You may be glad that they don't show up in the 3-year cycle of lectionary readings, because they are texts of despair and judgment. They...»

«Pressure Sores The complex etiology of pressure sores requires a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. The surgeon cannot simply schedule the patient for surgery and expect a healed wound that will not reoccur. Nursing home caregivers and primary care physicians should regularly evaluate their elderly and wheelchair-bound patients for the first signs of tissue necrosis. Internists can manage metabolic and physiologic diseases such as providing tight glucose control in diabetics. Dietitians...»

«A review of the effect of terracing on erosion Luuk Dorren and Freddy Rey Cemagref Grenoble, France, tel. +33-4-76762806, luuk.dorren@cemagref.fr / freddy.rey@cemagref.fr Abstract Terracing is one of the oldest means of saving soil and water. The objective of this paper is to provide information on the different types of terraces and their functioning, and to describe advantages and disadvantages of terraces regarding their efficacy to stop or reduce soil erosion. Existing literature and...»

«SPIRIT MATES · f'f, e i r 0 r i g i n e s ti ng and f) SEX-LIFE MARRIAGE DIVORCE B.,. J. M. PEEBLES, M.D., M. A •• F. A. S., Ph. D. II ALSO A SYMPOSIUM 'By Fo1'tg Noted Writers SPIRIT MATES THEIR PRE-EXISTENCE EARTH PILGRIMAGES REUNIONS IN SPIRIT-LIFE Edited and ArraDged h'F 1\.0BERT SUD ALL PEEBLES' PUBLISHING COMPANY s. Battle Creek, :l\llcblgan, U. A. \ • EDtcred According to Act of CoDgren iD the Year I 909, by j. M. PEEBLES, M. D. In the Office of the LibrariaD of CoDgreM,...»

«This is an extract from: Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation edited by Alice-Mary Talbot No. 1 in the series Byzantine Saints’ Lives in Translation Published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C. © 1996 Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University Washington, D.C. Printed in the United States of America www.doaks.org/etexts.html 6. LIFE OF ST. ATHANASIA OF AEGINA translated by Lee Francis Sherry Introduction In contrast to the...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.