Mooting research case material, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download Mooting research case material and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! Team code: iron 6 th ICLMS MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH HARVEY SPECTER (APPELLANT) v/s JHIRK COLLEGE OF LAW (JCL) (RESPONDENT) 1 Memorial on the behalf of RESPONDENT Team code: iron Table of Contents 1. [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION] ………………………………………………... 5 2. [STATEMENT OF FACTS] ………………………………………………………….... 6 3. [STATEMENT OF ISSUES] ………………………………………………………….. 8 4. [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS] ……………………………………………………. 9 5. [ARGUMENTS] ………………………………………………………………………... 9 6.Q: 1 Can Harvey Specter be held responsible as an owner of the page ? …………… 9 7.Q: 2 Whether the Publications impugned in the suit are malafides or they were based on truth and made for public good ? ………………………………………………………... 9 8.Q: 3 Whether the Publication through cyberspace can amount to defamation under Pakistani Law and what are the relevant factors to be considered by this honourable court while deciding the quantum of the claim ? ……………………………………………. 10 9. PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………….. 10 10. INTERNATIONAL CASES…………………………………………………………………... 3 11. NATIONAL STATUTES………………………………………………………………………. 3 12. INTERNATIONAL STATUTES OR CONVENTIONS…………………………………….. 4 2 Memorial on the behalf of RESPONDENT Team code: iron Statement of jurisdiction The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the petition filed before this Honorable Court. The petition invokes its writ jurisdiction under section 15 of the defamation ordinance 2002. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based. 5 Memorial on the behalf of RESPONDENT Team code: iron STATEMENT OF FACTS The present controversy arose from a defamation action brought by the Respondent, Jhirk College of Law, a renowned Law College imparting Legal education alleging that the Appellant , Harvey Specter published a statement impugning its reputation and the image of its institution. Appellant, Harvey Specter, owns a Facebook page and group that shares education related information and news and caters to young students seeking admissions in college or studying in early years of their colleges and universities. Harvey and one Mike Ross mostly post on the page. Harvey As editor and moderator of the page, only Harvey is capable of allowing, editing and deleting a post and/or comment on the Facebook page and associated group. On December 31, 2019 a statement appeared on Harvey’s Facebook page and group. The message posted by Mike Ross warned the public against doing any business with Jhirk College of Law (JCL) because it is very expensive and only catering to upper class students who have studied in foreign schools or prestigious local private schools. Friends and Colleagues promptly commented on the post that it was defamatory and thus illegal and should be deleted but it was not deleted or edited. On 6th January 2020, Jhirk College of Law (JCL) approached the Court of Law with the defamation suit against Mike Ross and Harvey Specter under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 seeking damages of Rs. 400,000,000 (400 Million) and the court was pleased to issue directions to delete Harvey Specter page and group as an interim measure till the decision of the case. Mike could not be located nor contacted for the service of the suit. JCL stated that it faced minimization of new admissions in the college which amounted to low income of the institution along with loss in standing in society and Harvey must be subject to Actual Damages. 6 Memorial on the behalf of RESPONDENT Team code: iron Furthermore, JCL stated that it has later served a legal notice on Harvey Specter under Section 8 of the Defamation Ordinance seeking an apology from him but he failed to comply with it. Later, on 25th February 2020, The Trial Court declared that false message posted was defamatory per se because it impugned the Respondent's reputation as a qualified and renowned Legal education institute. Therefore, under the common law, the publisher of the statement is strictly liable for the presumed damages flowing from such defamation. Appellant is its "publisher," since his active participation in receiving, storing, and relaying the message through his Facebook page and group was an indispensable step in the communication of the injurious statement to third parties. As Harvey Specter was not the author of the defamatory statement hence the Court only awarded Rs. 2,000,000 (2 Million) as damages instead of claimed damages of Rs. 400,000,000 (400 Million) to the respondent. Respondent JCL is challenging the decision with the plea that Mike Ross is a fictitious character created by Harvey to highlight his posts and increase traffic of his group and page and actually Harvey Specter is Mike Ross and as such Harvey should be held to have made defamatory statements both as author as well as publisher. 7 Memorial on the behalf of RESPONDENT Team code: iron Your honor of course we respect the fundamental rights of freedom of expression. But there is not any law who permits you to defame someone publicly and how it can be based on truth or if it is based on truth then why that he asked from public not to do business with JCL this proves that it was based on malafide. Mike rose also wrote in his comment that JCL is very expensive of course JCL is well known prestigious college and provides much higher standards of education that the reason why our Institute is expensive but the tuition fee is equally everyone whether rich or poor and we are not catering the upper class students only provide admission on the basis of merit Your honor in last I just wanted to say we suffered hug loss and also he degraded us in society the impact of this thing will be far more damaging not only for us but also for the students studying in JCL it will directly effect the value of our degree. Now it's up to you. Your decision means the future of thousands of students Q: 3 Whether the publication through cyberspace can amount to defamation under Pakistani Law and what are the relevant factors to be considered by this honorable court while deciding the quantum of the claim? Under defamation ordinance 2002. The defamation act through cyberspace can be held through Pakistani Law. Section 2(b) of this ordinance deals with this issue; this section states “Broadcasting …. including any electronic device”. PRAYER Appellant had made this fictitious character to defame my client, so it is clear from facts that appellant did all this intentionally and it is based on malafide and he should be held responsible for all this defamatory act. And I pray for a fair decision from court for my client. 10 Memorial on the behalf of RESPONDENT Team code: iron 11 Memorial on the behalf of RESPONDENT