Clarifications
Please note that not all clarification requests have been specifically addressed. In most cases, a general response has been provided. Parties are reminded to confine their factual analysis and discussion of issues in their submissions to matters relevant to the reserved questions.
Please do not hesitate to contact convenor@gibbsanu.com if you have any further issues.
-
Yes.
-
How you allocate issues between Senior and Junior counsel is a decision for you and your team.
The speaking order will be as follows (unless your judge(s) say otherwise):
Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff
Junior Counsel for the Plaintiff
Senior Counsel for the Respondent
Junior Counsel for the Respondent
-
No. Per note 1, "[w]ith the exception of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), the parties should not refer to any legislative provisions other than those referred to..." in the problem question.
-
The DETER Act should be read as drafted. In any event, none of the reserved questions ask the Court to construe the DETER Act in detail beyond what is necessary for the Ch III validity challenge.
Parties should carefully review the problem question, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), and research any relevant case law or academic commentary if they have a query about interpretation.
-
The problem question should be taken as drafted. Parties are reminded to confine their factual analysis and discussion of issues in their submissions to matters relevant to the reserved questions.
-
Rule 16 applies generally to stop parties from making submissions regarding the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a matter. But where/if the problem question expressly asks you to address jurisdiction (or any other issue) you must do so.