INTERPART MOOT PROBLEM 2015

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL UiTM

(APPEAL JURISDICTION)

BETWEEN

RIVIA SDN BHD                                                                                               ...APPELLANT

AND

LASKAR BINA SDN BHD                                                                            ...RESPONDENT

in the matter in the High Court of UiTM

Civil Suit No. 10NCB-111-11/2014

BETWEEN

LASKAR BINA SDN BHD                                                                                           ...Plaintiff

AND 

RIVIA SDN BHD                                                                                                    ...Defendant

(Decided by the learned Justice Mohd Knopfler)

INTERPART 2015 MOOT PROBLEM

1. The fluctuation of the economy of recent times has pushed the price of property to incredulous heights. Though the national living standard has arisen, it is verily difficult to say the same regarding the quality and affordability of living considering the fact that the national cost of living is at an all-time high.

2. In light of the above conundrum, two property development companies, both of which were incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1950, namely Rivia Sdn Bhd ("Rivia") and Laskar Sdn Bhd ("Laskar") saw an opportunity to aid nation's citizens while still generating a reasonable margin of profit. 

3. Rivia and Laskar have entered into a Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA") executed on 1.1.2013 to develop an affordable housing project on a piece of land approximately 15 hectares in size situated in Shah Alam ("Property"). This Property is an unencumbered lot wholly owned by Laskar.

4. Datuk Raz ("Raz") is the CEO and shareholder of Rivia while Datuk Indra ("Indra") is the CEO of Laskar. Leading up to the execution of the JVA, Indira has sent the following e-mail to Raz:

"Dear Datuk Raz of Rivia, 

Do accept my utmost appreciation to the fact that you yourself share the same aspirations to help our nation's citizens during these perilous times. Our future generations should at least be able to afford a roof over their heads.

We reconcile with the fact that our combined funds alone is insufficient to make up a fairly strong capital injection to realise our venture.

As we all already know the Property as it stands now is wholly owned by Laskar. In the spirit of national salvation, Laskar is prepared to place the property as security to enable Rivia to obtain facilities from a financier, preferably from a reputable financial institution.

"Building Life for a Living"

Yours truly, 

Datuk Indra"

[Sent on 10.10.2012]

5. In response, Raz replied vide the following e-mail:

"Dear Datuk Indra of Laskar,

I refer to our JVA and also your e-mail sent on 10.10.2012. Indeed, my children and their children do not deserve to be engulfed in such a predicament. The country prospers and standard of living rises, but the cost of living seems insurmountable and the scale of earning remains stagnant which is not doing any favours at all. The low profit margin from this JVA might tilt the scale although just for little, but a little goes a long way in this day and age. At least we are not in arms with the sickness that sky-rocketed the property price to the heavens and beyond.

Regarding to the prospect of fresh capital input, Rivia expresses its immense appreciation and will ensure that the Property will be utilised as security with minimal risks of enforcement and/or seizure by the Bank. We are already in talks with Bank Sans Frontieres ("BSF") and they have agreed to grant facilities contingent to the size of the Property.

Please see attached here, the final draft of the JVA dated 15.10.2013 for your perusal. If all is a go, then Rivia will proceed to execute and stamp the JVA.

*see Appendix A of the Moot Problem for salient clauses of the JVA

"Sustainability as Life's Priority"

Warm Regards, 

Datuk Raz"

[Sent on 15.10.2012]

6. Upon perusal of the draft JVA attached in the e-mail above, both Rivia and Laskar proceeded to execute the JVA containing the exact similar terms in Appendix A on 1.1.2013. Laskar has also executed a third-party charge in favour of Rivia placing the Property as security with BSF.

7. In the midst of the Development, the State Authorities issued a notice of acquisition to Laskar stipulating that approximately 20% of the Property shall be put under acquisition for the construction of the Anggerek Highway, an alternative tolled Highway to ease the congestion in and out of Shah Alam to and from Kuala Lumpur. The Land Acquisition Notice in Form G (Appendix B) was issued in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

*See Appendix B of the Moot Problem for the Notice of Acquisition

8. In response to the Notice of Acquisition, Laskar issued Form N under Section 38(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to object the amount of compensation stated in Form G. Laskar's, out of the numerous grounds of objection enlisted under the same Section of the Act, Laskar only enlisted its ground of objection as;

"(a)      Membantah amaun dan/atau jumlah pampasan dan/atau gantirugi yang dinyatakan              dalam Borang G"

9. Upon the conclusion of Laskar's Objection, the State Authorities have agreed to set the compensation at RM 12,500,000.00 which is a notable increase of RM 2,500,000.00.

10. In view of the acquisition, the parties saw that it is appropriate to enter into a Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") to revise and determine the parties' Revenue Entitlement as per Clause 2.0 of the JVA. The following term was agreed vide the Settlement:

     1.1      It is mutually agreed that Laskar's Revenue Entitlement shall be the determined                     sum of RM 40,500,000.00; and 

     1.2     It is mutually agreed that the developer's Revenue Entitlement shall be the total                    revenue from the sales of the development less Laskar's determined Revenue                      Entitlement above and other expenses in furtherance of the JVA.

11. Consequently, the compensation was fully paid to Bank Sans Frontieres to relinquish the debt and redeem Property from being security. At the same moment in time, the determined Revenue Entitlement was also paid in full to Laskar. 

12. Upon realizing that the compensation was not paid to Laskar, Datuk Indra immediately called Datuk Raz telephonically and tumultuously vented the following:

"You ungrateful capitalist fodder, what makes you think you can use our compensation money to relinquish your own debt?

We were generous enough to source our own land to be held as security knowing that Rivia does not have adequate funds to develop the Property to generate profit. Rivia literally obtained monies from the facilities at the expense of Laskar's generosity. If not for the security, it goes without saying that BSF won't even take a 2nd look at your loan application.

Clearly the compensation monies are Laskar's own as Laskar is the appropriate as well as the actual party suffering a loss and detriment from the acquisition.

As a borrower to BSF, you were supposed to pay your own debts yourself, from your own coffer, and not at the expense of other's loss. It is your duty to discharge the security, you insolent fool. You can't even read the contracts properly can you? Abide by the Contracts, Raz. You cannot feign ignorance to what we have agreed to.

It goes without saying that the compensation monies are disparate and distinct from the Revenue Entitlement and/or all of the contracts we have entered into. 

You know what? The JVA's clause on Acquisition doesn't make sense either. 

Both of us were only supposed to obtain profits from the sale of the housing units and not anything else. That's the exact reason we set up an account as such. It is vivid that the compensation monies are not any part of it. 

I am all for easing the citizens' predicament in affording a home for their families, but I do not and will not stand idle while vultures like Rivia preys on corporations and stealing people blind!

Let the hammer of justice obliterate your greed. Rest assured, I will see you in Court."

13. Subsequent to the altercation above, Raz sent the following e-mail to Indra:

"Dear Indra, 

As much as I respect you as a business partner with similar ideals, I take utmost offence over your loose-lipped remark about myself being a capitalist fodder. I have no doubt at all that I have the people's interests at heart, and not solely my own. Perhaps you are the greedy dragon who jumps the exact moment money is involved. 

It is only logical that the compensation monies from part and parcel of the parties' Revenue Entitlements which were consequently concluded vide the Settlement.

We were in this together, and the debt Rivia incurred is for the furtherance of our common JVA. Laskar is not the only party adversely affected by the acquisition.

And don't you forget the mass of conducts of Laskar itself which acquiesces that the compensation monies are indeed a part of the Revenue Entitlement notwithstanding whatever that has been agreed.

In fact, why don't you take a closer look and properly read all our contracts? What makes you think that the Acquisition Clause doesn't make sense? Au Contraire, Indra, the Acquisition Clause fits the the parties' relationships and covenants like a smooth silk glove. 

I don't understand all your ramblings about the Account. It's hardly an issue and in fact a non-issue to be precise.

Save your sermon for justice for your untruly delusions, Indra. The Court is a chamber of facts, not paranoia." 

Warmest Regards, 

Datuk Raz of Rivia"

14. True to his words, Indra did file an action against Rivia in the High Court of UiTM, with Justice Mohd Knopfler presiding. Knopfler J. upon disposing the case has decided in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent, Laskar Bina Sdn Bhd on the following grounds:

         i.       Parties to the JVA must strictly adhere to the provisions of the Contract and shall                   not be allowed to deviate from each party's covenants;

         ii.        The only party actually adversely affected by the Acquisition is the Plaintiff;

        iii.         The compensation monies do not form part and parcel of revenues under the                        JVA or even the Settlement;

        iv.        The Acquisition Clause in the JVA should be severed from the rest of the JVA                       as it is indeed ambiguous.

15. The Defendant-Appellant, Rivia Sdn Bhd, in turn has filed a Notice of Appeal against the totality of Knopfler J's decision which shall be heard in the Moot Court of Appeal UiTM. The grounds of appeal anlisted in the Notice of Appeal are as follows:

           i.        The Respondent, through its conducts, acquiesces and/or accedes that the                            parties (particularly the Appellant) to the JVA may derogate from the covenants                      agreed in the JVA;

           ii.       The Respondent as the Developer under the JVA was also adversely affected                        by the Acquisition;

          iii.       The compensation monies should be taken into account in the calculation of                          entitlements under the JVA which was already resolved through the Settlement                      Agreement; and

          iv.       The Acquisition Clause in the JVA should remain enforceable as the clause is                        not at all ambiguous. 

APPENDIX A

JOINT-VENTURE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

RIVIA SDN. BHD.

AND

LASKAR BINA SDN. BHD.

Dated: 1st January 2013

Preamble:-

This Joint-Venture Agreement ("JVA") is entered into by the two parties above for the common as well as mutual benefit and purpose of developing the Shah Alam land wholly owned by Laskar Bina Sdn Bhd ("Property") into an affordable housing area.

1.0   Definitions

a. Laskar Bina Sdn Bhd shall be referred to as ("Laskar")

b. Rivia Sdn Bhd shall be referred to as the ("Developer")

c. Shah Alam Land shall be referred to as the ("Property")

d. ("Housing Development Account") shall refer to the definition of a Housing                         Development  Account defined under Section 7A (3) of the Housing Developers                 (Control and Licensing) Act 1966.

2.0   Revenue Entitlements

a. Laskar is entitled to either 40 per centum (40%) of the gross profit from the Development       or any alternative future determinable sum to be mutually agreed by all parties and               incorporated into such appropriate agreement(s) as its Revenue Entitlement. 

b. The Developer is entitled to the total revenue from the Development upon deducting             Laskar's Revenue Entitlement under Clause 2.0 (a) above and any other costs incurred in     furtherance of the Development under the JVA.

3.0   Land Acquisitions  

a. In the circumstances that the Property or any part thereof shall be subjected to any order     and/or notice for acquisition, each party's entitlement to the compensation sum shall take     into account the stage of development's progress and other ancillary expenses in                 furtherance of the development under the JVA.

4.0   Placing the Property as Security

a. In the circumstance that the Developer opted to charge or otherwise encumber the whole     or any part of the property, the Developer herein covenants and undertakes with Laskar        that:

    

           i.     The Developer shall discharge or cause to discharge the charge or any                                   encumbrance(s) on the Property or any part thereof immediately upon the full                         settlement of the loan and/or facility sum at the Developer's own expense.

APPENDIX B

Authored by:   AHMAD ZULFIKRI BIN IBRAHIM

                          Advocate and Solicitor

                        Messrs Fuad, Abi & Aidil

                        LLB (Hons) UiTM

INTERPART MOOT PROBLEM 2014

IN THE MOOT COURT OF APPEAL UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI SHAH ALAM

IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN

APPEAL NO: W-004-TF OF 2014

BETWEEN

METAUDIO                                                                                                       ... APPELLANT

AND

SENDERS' WALTZ SDN BHD                                                                        ... DEFENDANT

1.         Winn Hargrove is a world-renowned jazz artiste who to date had earned the prestige of 16 Jazzy Awards. He had in his 50 years career released over 20 albums which at least 12 of them went platinum with record-breaking sales. Mr. Winn had earned his voluminous accolades because of his attention to sound precision and quality. There had been no releases of Mr. Winn that were short of an audio innovation and sheer marvel. Mr. Winn is the quintessential audiophile with the added insights of audio engineering genius.

2.         After half a century being involved in the music industry, Mr. Winn had an epiphany. He had envisioned sharing his work at a more intimate zenith. Instead of releasing a fully-composed audio recording to the masses, Mr. Winn intended to share to his listeners how he perceives sound in its fullest attention and detail. In his work, there is not a parsec of room for even a decibel of noise.

3.         Mr. Winn set forth to pursue his vision and had invented the “Incognito”, an active sound-cancelling dynamic over-ear headphones. The blueprint of the headphone shows that the headphone was engineered to generate the purest unperturbed sound. The make of the headphone is a complex hybrid of a carbon-fibre body, high-definition ultra-magnetic coils, solid gold input and output jacks, and mahogany tone-wood cups for maximum noise-cancellation, anti-coloration and high fidelity. The headphone boasts a ground-breaking frequency range of 5Hz to 75 000Hz. The headphone’s ear caps are made out of memory-foam and sown over with a weave of high-abrasion suede and leather for the perfect fit and durability.

4.         Mr. Winn had since under his own label, Metaudio, manufactured 5 million units of the “Incognito” for worldwide sales distribution. The Incognito’s sales motif is set as “High and Low, Incognito”. A full-blown marketing campaign was scheduled to launch in March 2014. The label is a company incorporated in London.

5.         For distribution in ASEAN countries, Metaudio had contracted with various distributors in different countries to be sold to many other certified retailers. For the distribution in Malaysia, Mr. Winn on behalf of Metaudio had initially emailed the Managing Director of Senders’ Waltz Sdn. Bhd. (a wholesale and distribution company incorporated in Malaysia), Miss Rania Olstead the following excerpt:

“Dear Miss Olstead,

The Incognito is not just a mere consignment. What I intend to distribute is an experience, not mere goods. What you are dealing with are cutting-edge equipment and materials which beg for proper handling and care. If Metaudio was to take you under our stride to distribute these experiences, I would take it that you share my understanding and concerns.

“High and Low, Incognito”

Yours exuberantly,

Winn Hargrove” – sent [8.12.2013]

To which Rania had replied the following:

“Dear Mr Hargrove,

We are honoured that you would consider our services to distribute your headphones. We are willing to extend our utmost cooperation in ensuring that the headphones are distributed in working condition alike all other contracts that we had in our years of business.

We had not even once failed your previous consignments of all your releases in the past. It is, was, and always will be our pleasure to have done business with Metaudio and yourself, maestro, for the past 5 decades.

“Let Senders Waltz”

Yours faithfully,

Rania Olstead” – sent [9.12.2013]

To which Mr. Winn followed with the following reply:

“Dear Miss Olstead,

I am glad that we both are on the same page.

“High and Low, Incognito”

Yours exuberantly,

Winn Hargrove.

7.         Following this exchange of emails, Metaudio had entered into a distribution agreement, the Malaysia Incognito Distribution Agreement (the “MIDA”) with Senders’ Waltz for the distribution of 250 000 units of Incognito. The MIDA was entered into between the two parties on 1.1.2014. The salient terms of the MIDA are as follows:

Clause

1a.       Metaudio Inc, (“the supplier”), agrees to supply, for the purpose of distribution in Malaysia, 250 000 units of the Incognito Headphones (“the headphones”), to Senders’ Waltz (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, (“the distributor”). The supplier agrees to employ the distributor’s services for the purpose of distributing the headphones to retailers in Malaysia.

1b.      The distributor agrees to take delivery of the headphones in Malaysia, as the port of destination for the purpose of distribution in Malaysia.

2a.       The supplier agrees to ship the headphones to the port of destination on 15.2.2014 on-board the vessel, SS Coltrain as nominated and agreed by both parties.

2b.      The distributor agrees to take delivery of the headphones shipped on-board the SS Coltrain on 15.2.2014. The distributor shall ensure that the headphones are distributed in proper working condition. The supplier shall have their representative at the distributor’s warehouse for the final inspection of the headphones before the headphones are distributed to retailers.

3a.       The risk over the headphones shall remain with the supplier until the headphones are delivered to the respective retailers in Malaysia.

8.         On 15.2.2014, Rania had already mobilised Senders’ Waltz’s trucks from their base in Johor Bahru to Klang Port to accept delivery from Metaudio. However, as the day grew weary and dark, SS Coltrain was nowhere to be seen. The Port’s manifest had not registered any docked vessels by the alias of SS Coltrain. At about 6.00pm on the same day, the flustered Rania received a phone call from Mr. Winn. Mr. Winn’s baritone voice chimed in a jagged rhythm as he explained the absence of SS Coltrain. Mr. Winn explained that SS Coltrain could not set sail today. Mr. Winn exclaimed:

“The voyage had to be delayed as the port of shipment had booked all their vacuum-sealed containers for other consignments prior to the headphones. The headphones itself were not vacuum-sealed for environmental reasons. As an avid environmentalist, the vacuum sealed plastic bags would only be unsealed and thrown away by his listeners. Only a handful of people in the world are conscious enough to break their backs to recycle. Most of them would simply bludgeon the environment further having the plastic packages burnt in incinerators and illegal open burning. Moreover, as the target audience of the headphones are audiophiles, this segment of listeners would most probably own their own vacuum storage unit to store their intricate electronics and musical gadgets to keep them from oxidation and dampness. I reiterate that the headphones were made of mahogany tone-wood, a luscious songstress wood material. If the headphones were not sealed in vacuum, the headphones risk exposure to moisture and the wood components would indubitably be compromised of its integrity and the reverberating trait they hold. Especially along the port-side, the density of sodium chloride (known to mere mortals as common salt) is more prevalent in the air which increases the risk of oxidation of the metal components of the headphones.

Metaudio had no choice but to delay delivery to the port of shipment for three (3) days pending the availability of vacuum-sealed containers. The consignment would arrive 3 days later than the agreed date as per the MIDA.”

9.         Rania in turn in the same telephone conversation stated that the delay is unacceptable. The delivery will fall outside of the agreed date in the contract. Rania exclaimed:

“Late delivery on your side would mean late delivery on our side. This will go beyond the contracted date. I have already mobilised my carrier trucks in Klang Port from Johor. That travel is nearly half of the country itself. As much as we had been in business together for years, you still can’t expect Senders’ Waltz to return the trucks back to Johor Bahru. It will be a waste of resources of time and petrol. You will have to bear our expenses to remain in Klang for the next 3 days until the consignment arrives.”

10.      Mr. Winn agreed to cover Senders’ Waltz expenses in accommodating their stay pending the arrival of the consignment in Klang Port.

11.      On 19.2.2014, SS Coltrain safely berthed at Klang Port and unloaded the headphones onto the port. At about 3.00pm in the evening, all the headphones were successfully loaded unto the trucks. However, when one of the trucks was revved up to move, the ball-joint between the truck chassis and the cargo jerked violently and split into two. It was later found that for the last three days, the trucks were left to park at the port in the open air. The ball-joint seems to have rusted to the point of breakage. Rania then immediately telephoned Skodania, the after-market service providers for Senders’ Waltz carrier trucks. To Rania’s disdain, Skodania can only bring the spare-parts and their mechanics for repair works the following day on 20.2.2014. Rania had no choice but to postpone the transportation till the next day. Rania then telephoned Mr. Winn to inform of the unfortunate mishap. The trucks had to travel in a convoy for the purposes of security.

12.      Mr. Winn was thoroughly disgruntled. He could not bear the thought of having the headphones sitting senselessly for another day. Rania answered that they would bear the cost for the one day stowage of the consignment in Klang Port. Mr. Winn reminded Rania that the headphones require proper storage to prevent deterioration and damage.

13.      Rania promptly called on the port officials to ascertain if there were cargo holds still available to stow the consignment for the rest of the day till tomorrow when the damaged truck was fit to operate after necessary repairs. The port officials explained that there is one cargo hold which was available which had the necessary equipment to store the consignment in a vacuum. However, the officer who had the expertise to operate this specialised equipment was on leave for the whole week. Rania skimmed through her contacts to see if there was anyone that within her network that might have the expertise to operate the hold around the Klang Valley area.

14.      Fortunately, Rania recalled that Mr. Har Bee Han Kuok, a storage specialist from Han Kuok Specialty Storage and Delivery Sdn. Bhd. had his registered address in Petaling Jaya. She immediately dialled Han Kuok to identify if he would be able to assist Senders’ Waltz with storage management. Han Kuok immediately drove to Klang Port to assess the situation.

15.      Upon assessing the consignment and storage hold, Han Kuok identified that he would be able to operate the hold’s equipment. Both Rania and Han Kuok quickly drew an agreement:

A.   Han Kuok (“the handler”) shall be employed from 19.2.2014 till 20.2.2014. The handler shall follow all the instructions and guidelines provided by Senders’ Waltz (“the company”) in the management of the consignment.

B.   The handler shall stow the consignment in a vacuum state utilising the equipment available in the cargo hold.

C.   The Company shall pay the handler remuneration for his work.

16.      On the following day, at the time the hold was opened, it was found that there were vapours on the seams of the headphones’ packaging. It can be seen that the foam paddings securing the headphones in their packages were slightly damp. It was later found that Han Kuok had not secured one of the vacuum seals of the cargo hold.

17.      Notwithstanding the state of the headphones at that time, Senders’ Waltz proceeded with their journey and finally reached their headquarters in Johor Bahru. Mr. Harry Mason, Metaudio’s inspections officer and representative conducted final inspection of the goods with his team in Senders’ Waltz warehouse. The inspection concluded that at least 35% of the headphones had a more profound sound absorption rate than the other 65%. Sound waves were lost and were not channelled properly into the audio engine.

18.      The inspection found that the cause of the weaker sound integrity was damp mahogany tone-wood structures in the headphones. The affected headphones now could only boast a 20Hz - 35 000Hz frequency range. Nevertheless, the headphones are in working condition. These results were then communicated to Mr. Winn Hargrove.

19.      Mr. Winn was thoroughly infuriated. Without a moment’s hesitation, Mr. Winn had called for a total-recall of all the units shipped to Senders’ Waltz. Mr. Winn then communicated to Rania that Senders’ Waltz had conducted itself negligently and in total disregard of the contract as the headphones were not up to spec.

20.      Rania however replied that Senders’ Waltz had not been in breach of the contract. The headphones are indeed in proper working condition. The headphones are able to properly function as they were intended to be used. There was no reason for the total-recall of the headphones. In fact, not all of the headphones were affected. Furthermore, Senders’ Waltz should be absolved from any liability even in the instance of negligence. Senders’ Waltz understood that the MIDA shall be similar to all of our contracts in the past which provides the following exclusion clause:

“cl. 89:

The distributor shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever on the goods caused by neglect and/or wilful neglect on the part of the distributor.”

21.      Notwithstanding Rania’s revolt, Mr. Winn gritted his teeth, slammed his fists on his marble table and stood firm with his decision. All the headphones were recalled by Metaudio. Metaudio then had filed a suit in the High Court of Universiti Teknologi MARA, which stood trial before Judge Zairi Zainudin. The High Court had held the following:

      I.   --  It was clear from the construction of the MIDA itself that time is of the essence. As the Plaintiff had first, delayed delivery to the port of shipment, they had breached the contract.

    II.       - The Defendant was not in breach of the MIDA as the headphones were indeed in working condition, fit to perform and operate as it was intended to perform and operate as headphones at the time the goods were in the Defendant’s possession.

   III.        - The Defendant was not at all negligent in the care and management of the headphones and even if the Defendant was negligent, they are absolved from any liability as the exclusion clause relied upon by the Defendant applies as intended by both parties in the making of the MIDA.

  IV.      - The Court finds that Han Kuok is the employee of the Defendant, and that the Defendant should have been vicariously liable for Han Kuok’s negligence. However, as the Defendant is protected by the exclusion clause, the Defendant remains absolved from any liability.

Claim dismissed. Judgment for the Defendant, Senders’ Waltz Sdn. Bhd.

Metaudio now appeals to the Court of Appeal of Universiti Teknologi Mara against Zairi Zainudin J’s decision.

Moot Author
ZULFIKRI IBRAHIM

Lawyers vs Mooters Fundraising and Charity Event 2013

INTERPART MOOT PROBLEM 2013

IN THE MOOT COURT OF UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MARA

AT SHAH ALAM

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Between

BEAST FRANKLYN​                     …APPELLANT

​                

And

THE MALAYSIAN ASSOCIATION

FOR AUTHORS AND JOURNALISTS.   ​                 …RESPONDENT

​    

Beast Fraklyn, 32, was a St Roque School of Journalism graduate, whose academic achievements was never short of excellent. It landed him a job as a journalist at Eggleston Co., a company renowned for its high profile publications.

Despite his impressive bulk, Beast had always been thought by many as an effeminate man, rendering him shunned and treated much like an outcast by some of his peers.However, initially Beast did not think much of it as he always had a healthy spirit of confidence and unswerving determination. More so, his superior regarded him as one of the best journalist Eggleston Co. has ever seen.

What Beast’s superior and peers did not know was, he was born with Gender Identification Disorder (GID), a condition in which one’s physical sex does not match the perceived sex of the individual. He had consciously struggled with this disorder since his childhood years but he tried not to take too much notice of it.

As years passed by, and being an accomplished journalist at Eggleston for almost five years, he could no longer conceal his inner struggle to be seen as a man although deep down he felt so ‘womanly’. Beast’s difficult battle had left him feeling depressed and distraught. His performance at Eggleston was nowhere near his previous accomplishments, leaving not only him but his superior worried and bewildered by his sudden lack of focus. Beast’s state of depression was a cause for concern, and seeing this his superior gave him one month leave of absence.

Besides that, in two months time, Beast was to be present at the most prestigious journalism award ceremony in Malaysia hosted by The Malaysian Association for Authors and Journalists (MAAJ). He was to receive the coveted “Malaysia’s Hot Journalist of 2013” for his highly acclaimed reporting skills.

His superior was very intent in preparing Beast (mentally and emotionally) for the award ceremony, as members of the public already knew that Beast was to receive the award.

It was during his leave of absence that Beast did the unthinkable ; he flew to Thailand to undergo a sex change operation. However, everyone was kept in the dark as to his intention to do so as he was sure that it would not in any way alter his stellar performance at Eggleston.

After the successful sex change operation, Beast resumed work at Eggleston. “Call me Beatrice. I am no longer a beast”, was the response that Beast gave when his people glared and stared at him.  

A week later, Beast was summoned to his superior's office. He was not prepared for the exchange that followed. He was informed that The Malaysian Association for Authors and Journalists had reached a unanimous decision in revoking the “Malaysia’s Hot Journalist of 2013” award, as Beast’s behaviour was deemed to be immoral and would disrupt the office's morale.

A few weeks later, Beast instituted a suit against The Malaysian Association for Authors and Journalists,claiming that the revocation of award by The Malaysian Association for Authors and Journalists, unlawful and unconstitutional as per Article 8(2) of the Federal  Constitution.

On a preliminary ruling, Ross J held that:

Article 8 did not include protection for transsexuals and stated further that "if the term 'sex' is to mean more than biological male or biological female, the new definition must come from the Parliament."

The trial court concluded further that The MalaysianAssociation for Authors and Journalists had not discriminated against Beast because he was a male or afemale, but because he was a transsexual -- "a biological male who takes female hormones, cross-dresses, and has surgically altered parts of her body to make it appear to be female."

Therefore, because Article 8 did not prohibit discrimination against transsexuals, the trial court entered judgment in favour of The Malaysian Association for Authors and Journalists.

Beast is left dissatisfied with the judgment delivered by Ross J in the trial court and now seeks to appeal to theUniversiti Teknologi Mara Moot Court.

Beast advances the position that he ought to have been kept on as the “Malaysia’s Hot Journalist of 2013” awardrecipient regardless of gender as he had and continues to have the necessary occupational experience, skills and knowledge to perform the duties required of a stellarEggleston journalist.