Mooting Opportunities at Swansea

Overview

I am indebted to a colleague to whom I was talking in September 2018, who asked if we had entered the Advocate of the Year Competition. “No”, I replied, “I haven’t heard of it.” He very kindly passed me their contact details and I signed us up, before reading the rules and realising that we needed four students to enter a team. Fortunately, the Swansea Student Bar Society has been in the very capable hands of its President, Chris Brain, and he was more than happy to help with recruitment. More on that later.

To start with, though, what is it about? Essentially, there are small Regional Competitions, with four teams in each region. For us this meant a relatively short trip to BPP Bristol. The day consists of two trials, one civil and one criminal and in each the team represents either the Claimant or Respondent and either the Prosecution or Defendant. In the criminal trial, each member must do one of a conference, an examination in chief, a cross-examination, and a submission on a point of evidence. In the civil trial, each member must do one of a conference, an examination in chief, a cross-examination, and a closing speech. No team member may do the same skill twice, and each team member must do one of the witness handling skills.

Got it? Not quite! The total scores of each team over the two rounds determine which team wins the regional Competition. However, only the top twelve individuals from across the regions qualify for the National Finals, held this year at the Old Bailey, where they have to compete in two trials, but this time participating in each of the skills once. The top three students get awards, including a scholarship to BPP for the BPTC.

And breathe…

2019/20

After an internal process organised by the Student Bar Society, with thanks to second year student Rhys Allen for his hard work, the four students selected were Gareth Horrocks (GDL), Louis Elliott (2^nd year), Chris Buffin (1^st year) and Jack Carlton (2^nd year). They had a variety of experience at the time of the competition but the participants from the 2018/2019 competition were happy to pass on their experience.

The scenarios for the Regionals involved an allegation of harassment with possible consequences involving injunctions, and a road traffic accident, with all of the inevitable ‘no independent witness, no video evidence’ fun that such a case involves! The students threw themselves into the preparation and quickly became proficient at instinctively knowing when an avenue of questioning or argument could be improved.

On the day, BPP Bristol hosted with the same efficiency and hospitality as in the previous year, and all four students enjoyed the experience. The results were released the following day, and while Swansea hadn’t held on to their regional title from the previous year, there was an excellent individual result for Gareth who qualified for the National Competition, emulating Caryl’s performance in the previous year.

Unfortunately, the date of the National competition was subsumed by the Covid 19 crisis, although the organisers are hopeful of being able to re-schedule for the autumn.

Overview

The Oxford University Press Mooting Competition, in association with the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, is one of the most prestigious mooting competitions in England and Wales and attracts a large percentage of domestic law schools to enter each year. The format, an appeal by two representatives of a law school against two representatives of another law school, embraces all areas of law, with a different scenario being crafted for each round. The competition is normally a total of six or seven rounds, depending on the number of teams entering the competition.

2019/20

The representatives of the University in this competition are selected by members of faculty following an application process, based on an advocacy performance and experience of mooting skills. This year the team of two that was selected comprised of Lawrence Thomas (3rd year) and Dora Velenczei (2nd year).

The first round problem itself centred around an interesting question about the definition of a weapon and whether an otherwise innocuous item could constitute a weapon. Although both Lawrence had studied criminal law, and Dora had started studying the subject, a quick flick through their notes made them realise that this was not on the curriculum! However, this didn’t faze them, and they threw themselves into determined research on the subject, developing an excellent understanding of the law and the reasoning behind the law on the subject.

The draw was not favourable as it produced UCL; although they had won the competition the previous year, the more frustrating part was the journey which was unusually long for the normally geographically favourable first round. However, once the trains and tube had been conquered, and despite Lawrence coming down with a cold the day before, both of them performed with great strength and confidence, missing out by a very narrow margin 140-135, and with Dora being ranked the second strongest performer of the four.

Both Lawrence and Dora enjoyed the experience and are confident that they will be able to develop their skills going forward.

We will be entering the competition again in 2020/2021 and will be inviting interested students to apply early in the academic calendar.

Overview

The ESU-Essex Court Chambers Moot, in association with the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, is a long standing mooting competition in England and Wales, with the first final having been held in 1972. The competition attracts a large percentage of domestic law schools to enter each year and is always keenly fought. The format, an appeal by two representatives of a law school against two representatives of another law school, embraces all areas of law, with a different scenario being crafted for each round. The competition is normally a total of six or seven rounds, depending on the number of teams entering the competition.

2019/20

The representatives of the University in this competition are selected by members of faculty following an application process, based on an advocacy performance and experience of mooting skills. Further, in order to broaden the numbers of students who can participate, we do not typically allow the same students to represent the University in multiple mooting competitions in one year. This year the team of two that was selected comprised of Rhiannon Smith (2nd year) and Rhys Allen (2nd year).

This year the problem focused on an issue that has become critical in recent years, specifically when is a worker and employee and when are they self-employed. Here the question was whether a nightclub could be vicariously liable for the actions of a security guard. The nature of the problem opened up excellent avenues for passionate and engaged advocacy and both Rhys and Rhiannon relished the opportunity to develop their skills, seeking advice along the way from members of faculty who had in the past, and still do, practice advocacy as barristers and solicitors.

On the day, the result against Cardiff was as close as it could be, with Cardiff winning by 1 point. Both Rhiannon and Rhys showed how far they had come in their advocacy, putting in solid, polished, and eloquent arguments to support their case.

Overview

Landmark Chambers are a London based Chambers who run, on an annual basis, two competitions designed to test students on areas of practice that are central to their operations. The format is an intense process, with around twenty-five teams participating in one round, with each individual having ten minutes to argue their point of the appeal. Of the teams that participate in the first round, only the top eight proceed to the next round, the quarter-finals.

The competition is also a networking opportunity for the students as the first round takes place at their Chambers and includes a Masterclass in Property Law, and a Question and Answer session designed to assist the understanding of the students of the pupillage application process.

2019/20

The representatives of the University in this competition are selected by members of faculty following an application process, based on an advocacy performance, experience of mooting skills, and knowledge of property law, as the mooting scenarios often involve very detailed points of law within this field. Further, in order to broaden the numbers of students who can participate, we do not allow the same students to represent the University in multiple mooting competitions in one year. This year the team of two that was selected comprised of Rhoan Ghosal (3rd year) and Zachariah Rooth (2nd year).

The problem this year focused on the question of anti-social behaviour within a tenancy, and whether past actions in protesting could be used as a reason to evict the tenant. There were numerous issues raised, all of which were more specialised than Rohan and Zak were used to in land law, but they put in excellent research to provide a thoroughly prepared and detailed skeleton argument.

This is probably the hardest moot to gauge the likelihood of success as double the number of teams that qualify for the quarter finals fail to do so. On this occasion, the team just missed out, but they enjoyed the experience and gained much from the Masterclass and networking opportunities at Chambers.

Overview

The medical law mooting competition is organised by Dr Tracey Elliott at the University of Leicester, and has provided an outstanding forum for the argument and analysis of areas of law that are specific to medical issues. The format is similar to other moots except for one point which is that one moot problem is used and the students are required to prepare arguments for both sides. In the preliminary rounds they argue once for each side and the top eight teams proceed to the quarter finals. The teams that did not qualify get the benefit of a Masterclass from a local practitioner.

2019/20

The application process for this competition was heavily publicised both to the general cohort and in particular to those choosing to study medical law with Trish Rees; one of the most popular of the elective modules. The team selected was Mari Watkins and Laurence Cooper (both second years). They had also entered the internal Senior Mooting Competition as a team and would go on to win that competition later in the year, and so were used to working together in both preparation and delivery. Mari had won the First Year Mooting Competition while Laurence had been awarded a prize by Lord Carlile for best oral presentation in a Masterclass, so both had strong foundations for this skill.

The scenario was based around two questions. The first was whether or not a consultant surgeon was an employee for the purposes of vicarious liability, and the second was whether the defence of illegality was applicable. Being completely distinct the team had to work especially hard to prepare for both questions, and for both sides, with the latter point helping the team ensure that their arguments were resilient.

On the day, the first two preliminary rounds saw Mari battle against eventual winners UCL and the Open University, producing sufficiently strong performances to be amongst the eight top scoring teams, which meant that they had improved on the previous year’s 9th place. In the quarter finals they went further, defeating a strong University of Law team, before finally being defeated in the semi-final by a team from Gray’s Inn.

This was a fantastic first external competition for both Mari and Laurence, and the sheer number of advocacy performances in the day helped to improve their advocacy and strength under pressure.

Overview

Along with the Client Interviewing Competition, the Negotiations Competition has its roots in the United States, where it remains the largest of the domestic competitions across the world. However, the domestic competition in England and Wales is the second largest and has developed to this level with significant help from the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), first in their capacity as sponsors, and latterly as the organisers of the entire competition.

In a sense it is the easiest to explain. A team of two represents one side of a dispute or opportunity and another team of two represents the other side. They have fifty minutes to negotiate an agreement deploying the many skills of negotiation in order to facilitate the proceedings. They must also perform a self-reflection of the negotiation, explaining what they did well and what they could have done better. There are Regional Competitions and the qualifying teams compete at the National Competition, which is hosted by the winner from the previous year. The National Champions are invited to represent England and Wales at the International Competition.

2019/20

Following an internal competition, four students were selected to represent the University, as each University is permitted to enter two teams. This year, the selected students were for one team Justine Mears and Dora Velenczei (both 2nd years) and for another team Caryl Thomas and Meryl Hanmer (both LPC).

The scenarios with which they were confronted were as ingenious and well-conceived as always, with one involving a former athletic great being honoured by a sport’s organisation concerned by recent interviews given by the athlete, and another involving a University in conflict with an environmental activist.

On the day of the Regionals, both teams were well prepared, although the floods caused some significant issues in getting from Swansea to Bristol, particularly for Meryl and Caryl. Once there, they produced high quality negotiations with their opponents and were selected as one of the teams to qualify for the Nationals. Justine and Dora also put in strong performances, although suffered from a tactical neutralisation, as they realised that their Cardiff opponents were deploying the exact same tactics as they were; possibly due to their coach, a former National Champion, having been coached by the Swansea coach! Once the ten-minute awkwardness dissipated, the team flourished and although they didn’t progress, they gained a lot from the experience.

Unfortunately, due to Covid 19 the Nationals were cancelled, but Meryl and Caryl confirmed that they had enjoyed the experience and were delighted with their achievement.

Overview

Of the three main competitions to display non-adversarial skills, the most recently established is the Mediation Competition, which tests the abilities of students to mediate a range of situations, from family disputes through to complicated commercial arguments. There is no regional stage, and so represents a gathering of many law schools from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, all of whom are keen to win the team title as well as the Individual Mediator awards that are presented every year.

The competition itself requires a team of three with a particularly interesting element being that the make-up of the teams changes in each round. Each competitor will mediate twice, but always with a different partner, requiring great flexibility as individual mediators work with each other to deal with potentially difficult clients. Universities can also send additional participants to role-play as clients in the competition.

2019/20

We shortlisted a team of three based on expressions of interest and a practice run through past scenarios. The team were Taliesyn Kallstrom (1st year), Hope Young (2nd year) and Nilasha Raha (GDL).

The timing at the end of January always makes this a difficult event to prepare for, as it comes shortly after the January exam period. However, once the exams were done, the students threw themselves into learning the new skills that would arm them going into the competition and preparing their approach based on the fact patterns which focused on a wedding gone wrong, a boundary dispute, and a public relations relationship, itself in need of some PR!

This year’s event was hosted by the previous year’s winners, the University of Glasgow and the grand, ‘Hogwarts-esque’ opening ceremony immediately prompted the question from many teams to their coaches: Why can’t we have a castle?!  The hospitality of the University was superb, and it was an excellent opportunity for the students to connect with each other.

Following dinner, the team regrouped to continue preparations, individually and as part of the team. The practices showed a commitment to the competition, and ever developing skills.

I was unable to watch their progress as I was judging, but the feedback from the Swansea competitors showed that they had learned a great deal. The feedback from the judges was equally impressive, with one of the judges commenting that Taliesyn’s performance made him think that she was an experienced practitioner. That comment alone was brilliant to hear, and Taliesyn duly recorded the best individual result of the team, finishing 13th out of 45. The team, finished 6th overall, in a very tight battle.

Overview

The Client Interviewing Competition has run since 1984 and has experienced a strong and deserved growth spurt over the past five years as Law Schools develop an enhanced appreciation for the importance of what have traditionally been called ‘soft skills’, in this case the skill of interviewing a client for the first time.

The competition itself involves a team of two students from each University who are given a general topic and, for each client, a short memorandum, which is normally no longer than two or three lines. From this, they must meet a new client, gain information, advise them as to the law, and give some practical advice and options that they can take forward and consider. They must then reflect on the interview, how it has progressed, and what they could have done better and what they did well. All within forty minutes!

The competition is divided into regions with around twelve teams in each region. From this the top three scorers (over two interviews) proceed to the National Competition where they must perform three interviews and from where a National Champion is crowned. That team then progresses to the International Competition where they represent England and Wales.

2019/20

This year we held an Internal Competition to decide on the team that would represent the Law School at the Competition. The topic was property law, with an emphasis on damage to property. Six teams entered the internal competition and put into practice the skills that they had learned during lectures and a practice session.

The skill levels demonstrated were very impressive and there were some high marks awarded, but in the end, the winning team was comprised of final year students Alice Hinett and Nicole Johnston. They showed excellent poise, compassion, and an ability to understand the law. Congratulations to the second placed team, Mari Watkins and Yasmin Daly and the third placed team, Jasmine Mohamud and Joy Matibiri.

This year the University of South Wales hosted the Wales and South West Regional, and Swansea participated along with eleven other teams. The first challenge was getting there as it was during one of the intense storms that blighted 2020, and several teams made the understandable decision to put safety first, this was particularly as the ability to cross the Severn Bridge was by no means certain at the time.

On the day, Nicole and Alice did brilliantly in the first interview, concerning an overhanging tree, and placed second of the competing teams for that interview. The second interview, involving a wayward goat and a sequence of events that would have been appropriate for ‘You’ve been framed’ challenged them more, but they still demonstrated exceptional poise. Overall, with the scores combined, in a very high scoring regional they placed sixth, and just missed out on qualification for the Nationals. However, they both gained a lot from the experience.

Next year Swansea will be hosting the International event and are looking forward to bringing this prestigious event back to Wales for the first time since 2006.

Overview

The Maynooth Negotiations Competition was a new competition established in 2019/20 by Maynooth University in Ireland and was discovered by the Law School following an unrelated meeting. The teaching point for students is that you never know when an unexpected opportunity might come out of an event!

Maynooth kindly agreed to support the first team to enter from each of the home nations, which was a very generous gesture.

2019/20

The students selected for the competition were Justine Mears (2nd year) and Shehbaz Dosanjh (2nd year Senior Status). They had worked together previously, and with very differing styles they had the makings of a very strong team. They were provided with the general facts ahead of time but didn’t know which side they would be representing, or what the confidential facts would be, which meant that their preparation focused on how they would approach the advance period where they would have the confidential information.

The trip went very smoothly, with the organisation by the hosts being exceptionally generous and efficient, and Shehbaz and Justine both enjoyed the opportunity to compete in their first international event. The two scenarios, which involved complex commercial conflicts, left them with plenty of opportunity to explore the important aspects of distributive and interest-based negotiations, and they enjoyed working with the facts. Following the rounds, they had the opportunity to explore Dublin, and both had a great time and learned a lot.

Overview

The Sports Law Negotiations Competition has been a growing competition over the past five years, with various law firms being responsible for its organisation. Gateley’s LLP took over in 2018/19 with a distinct part of the competition being the glamorous venue of the Etihad Stadium in Manchester. The competition also differs from others as the confidential information is provided shortly before the start of the event, meaning that the teams need to rely on intense preparation and their instincts in order to flourish.

The scenarios typically focus on commercial sporting conflicts and require an understanding of sports and the wider commercial world.

2019/20

Following an internal competition, four students were selected to represent the University, as each University is permitted to enter two teams. This year the selected students were, for one team, Dominic Gray and Hope Young (both 2nd years) and, for the other team, George Gordziejewicz (3rd year) and Shehbaz Dosanjh (2nd year Senior Status).

The negotiations were intricate and typical of the real world, with one involving the fall-out after a cricketing breach of discipline and the other a sponsorship clash in women’s football. Both had layers of issues and complicated consequences that required constant attention.

All four students enjoyed the experience greatly and felt that the end results were ones that would have been successes. Unfortunately they did not win, and the final placings were not revealed, but the location, the atmosphere, and the networking opportunities were all extremely useful with Dominic describing it as “one of the best experiences of University.” He might not have been quite so enthusiastic after the trip home, which for all four was made harder by the flooding that hit the UK that weekend, but even this can be considered an excellent experience of the nightmares of commuting!

2018/19

This was the inaugural year for the First Year Mooting Competition and as such, inevitably, involved an untested framework that had the potential to go wrong. Fortunately, it didn’t, and that is largely because of the commitment of the Law School faculty who responded to numerous e-mails asking them to give up time from an already busy schedule to judge at the various stages of the competition.

The aims behind the competition were four-fold, and targeted four essential principles of the competition:

• The first was to encourage collegiality, which on first consideration may seem unusual for a competition. However, with over 250 students in a year, it is entirely possible for a student to go through a year without meeting all of their peers. An important part of this competition was to challenge this idea, and so the decision was made that in every round, the students would be paired with a separate partner and thus get to work with someone who they may know but equally may not.

• The second was to focus on educational development. A key focus of competition, as with education, is for the process to enhance the development of student skills rather than bring them to a standstill after one unlucky performance. To foster this, the process was designed as a league format whereby every student would be paired in every round. No-one would be eliminated and a student who had a bad first round would not find himself or herself eliminated. Indeed, if they improved then they could still find themselves in the running for the competition, and this was the central theme to the competition.

• The third aim recognised that our students are not studying for a degree in Mooting but in Law. Therefore, there was nothing to be gained from asking them to study an area of law that was outside their studies, or outside their semester topics. Therefore, each round involved a mooting problem that focused on a topic that they could, if they chose, study for the exam. This enabled them to develop their mooting skills alongside a deeper and wider understanding of the area of law.

• The final goal was to encourage all students to participate, whether they had presented publicly before or not. This recognised the reality, which is that some people may lack confidence, others may not want to perform in front of others, and some may simply be scared. This also recognised the reality, which is that this should not deter students from learning or having the opportunity to learn. To address this, the competition was split into six rounds, with the levels of judicial intervention increasing over time so that the early rounds would not require any answering of questions. Further, the first round, marked out of 30 rather than 50, would simply be the student, presenting to a member of faculty, with no-one else in the room, and on any subject in law that they chose to use.

This strand put the student in control, gave them an element of confidence and allowed them to display their advocacy skills in a safe environment.

The competition itself was a success as the students who finished the long process all showed an improvement in their skills and, over the course of the six rounds, there were five different top scorers in each round. The rounds were:

At an awards ceremony, the winners were announced by Professor Alison Perry, Co-Head of Department, with prizes awarded to the top five scorers over the course of the competition who were:

1. Mari Watkins
2. Mohab Bosila
3. Dora Velenczei
4. Lewis Morgan
5. Katie Howell

Congratulations to everyone who took part, and I hope you have gained from the experience. Overall, this competition appeared to be very well received by the students, and we are looking forward to running it again in 2019/2020, when, hopefully, the students who entered this year will be returning to judge!

Particular thanks to those who gave up their time to judge, both from the faculty and the student body. It wouldn’t have been possible without you.

Check again soon for updates on our Senior Competition!

Overview

I am indebted to a colleague to whom I was talking in September 2018, who asked if we had entered the Advocate of the Year Competition. “No”, I replied, “I haven’t heard of it.” He very kindly passed me their contact details and I signed us up, before reading the rules and realising that we needed four students to enter a team. Fortunately, the Swansea Student Bar Society has been in the very capable hands of its President, Chris Brain, and he was more than happy to help with recruitment. More on that later.

To start with, though, what is it about? Essentially, there are small Regional Competitions, with four teams in each region. For us this meant Cardiff, Bristol, Exeter, and Swansea, with the event hosted by BPP Bristol. The day consists of two trials, one civil and one criminal and in each the team represents either the Claimant or Respondent and either the Prosecution or Defendant. In the criminal trial, each member must do one of a conference, an examination in chief, a cross-examination, and a submission on a point of evidence. In the civil trial, each member must do one of a conference, an examination in chief, a cross-examination, and a closing speech. No team member may do the same skill twice, and each team member must do one of the witness handling skills.

Got it? Not quite! The total scores of each team over the two rounds determine which team wins the regional Competition. However, only the top twelve individuals from across the regions qualify for the National Finals, held this year at the Old Bailey, where they have to compete in two trials, but this time participating in each of the skills once. The top three students get awards, including a scholarship to BPP for the BPTC.

And breathe…

2018/19

As with most of these competitions, this was the first year that Swansea had entered and, after an internal process organised by the Student Bar Society, the four students selected were Meryl Hanmer (GDL), Caryl Thomas (GDL), Lewis Morgan (1^st year), and Rhys Allen (1^st year). None had any experience of witness handling skills, and all were in their first year of legal studies and yet they approached it with a willingness to learn and a determination to develop their legal skills.

The scenarios for the Regionals involved an alleged assault during a restaurant service, and a personal injury caused by alleged negligence (with the Claimant falling off a church tower!) They were very much outside the comfort zone of the students, but they divided the roles and threw themselves into preparation, mastering necessary skills as they went along including the importance of asking leading questions in cross-examination, and of never asking leading questions in examination-in-chief.

On the day, they all agreed that they loved the experience, and it was helpful to get feedback from the judges who were all experienced practitioners. They ‘won’ both trials on the merits which put them in excellent spirits and as the results were not announced on the day they were left waiting anxiously for the news of the scores. These were released the following day and they made for fantastic reading, with Swansea placing first in the Region, and Caryl Thomas being among the top twelve participants nationally and qualifying for the Nationals. All of the team were delighted with the win, particularly given the relative lack of experience in the competition.

Three months later, Caryl represented the University at the Nationals, held at the Old Bailey, fortified by advice from our Head of School, Professor Elwen Evans KC and was inspired by the history and majesty of the Central Criminal Court. Caryl performed fantastically in all of the skills, but received particular praise for her cross-examination, which had been honed to deadly accuracy over the previous months. Although she didn’t finish in the top four, she received excellent feedback from the judges and gained immense experience at the prestigious location.

Overview

The University of Surrey Mock Trial Competition is an exceptionally well-organised event by the University of Surrey Law Society. It is student-run and the hours that they put in to organise the event are evident in the detail that they provide with each round, capped off by the final round, which is hosted by Kingston Crown Court and presided over by a local judge.

The competition involves a display of witness handling skills and advocacy and seeks to replicate a criminal trial, with Universities from around the country taking part and demonstrating their skills.

2018/19

As usual, this year’s competitors were selected by the Student Bar Society and its President Chris Brain was diligent in his selection process helped by the ability to change the make-up of the team throughout the competition if necessary. The first round, against the University of Exeter consisted of Louis Elliott (1^st year) and Chris (3^rd year) himself, stepping in after one of the other team members had to withdraw. This change of line-up was dealt with impressively and the team overcame Exeter to progress to the next round.

The second round was a slightly different format as of the teams taking part only the top two scorers would progress. It was therefore necessary not only to win but also to win well, in order to qualify for the Final. The team this time was Rhys Allen (1^st year) and Caryl Thomas (GDL) who prepared a difficult case for a fictional Defendant charged with rape, and performed sufficiently well to score 96/100 and win the factual case to boot.

Their opponents in the Final would be, by a twist of fate, Reading who had scored the second highest number of points despite being defeated by Swansea in the semi-finals. To decide which of the Louis, Rhys, and Caryl would appear in the Final, Chris held try-outs with each of the three having to present a plea in mitigation. All three performed admirably but in the end, the team selected was that of Rhys and Caryl.

The Final, taking place before HHJ Plaschkes KC, was the prosecution of a young Defendant charged with possession with intent to supply. Rhys and Caryl worked hard to develop the particular art of representing the Prosecution in these cases and were successful, gaining both a conviction and the title.

All four of the participants performed exceptionally and their skills developed dramatically over the course of the year.

Overview

The Oxford University Press Mooting Competition, in association with the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, is one of the most prestigious mooting competitions in England and Wales and attracts a large percentage of domestic law schools to enter each year. The format, an appeal by two representatives of a law school against two representatives of another law school, embraces all areas of law, with a different scenario being crafted for each round. The competition is normally a total of six or seven rounds, depending on the number of teams entering the competition.

2018/19

The representatives of the University in this competition are selected by members of faculty following an application process, based on an advocacy performance and experience of mooting skills. This year the team of two that was selected comprised of Lawrence Thomas (2^nd year) and Cal Reid-Hutchings (3^rd year).

The first round problem itself centred around the question of a duty of care in tort, specifically in respect of assumption of responsibility, with an emphasis on the recent Supreme Court decision of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SPA v Playboy Club London Ltd and Others [2018] UKSC 43. Lawrence and Cal represented the Respondents and were drawn against Cardiff Law School, with the competition very kindly using geography as their ally in the early rounds to avoid the expense of criss-crossing the country!

On the day, Lawrence and Cal performed exceptionally well in their first appearance in an external moot, and their first time appearing before a barrister acting as judge. They were narrowly beaten by an excellent Cardiff team who later progressed to the third round of the competition. Both Lawrence and Cal learned a lot from the process and have been inspired to continue with their advocacy.

We will be entering the competition again in 2019/2020 and will be inviting interested students to apply early in the academic calendar.

Overview

The ESU-Essex Court Chambers Moot, in association with the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, is a long standing mooting competition in England and Wales, with the first final having been held in 1972. The competition attracts a large percentage of domestic law schools to enter each year and is always keenly fought. The format, an appeal by two representatives of a law school against two representatives of another law school, embraces all areas of law, with a different scenario being crafted for each round. The competition is normally a total of six or seven rounds, depending on the number of teams entering the competition.

2018/19

The representatives of the University in this competition are selected by members of faculty following an application process, based on an advocacy performance and experience of mooting skills. Further, in order to broaden the numbers of students who can participate, we do not allow the same students to represent the University in multiple mooting competitions in one year. This year the team of two that was selected comprised of Venus Graves (2^nd year Senior Status) and Yusuf Ali (2^nd year).

This year the first year problem was based around two different points of appeal, with the first focused on defamation of character and the second focused on the right of privacy, as the facts revolved around a ‘celebrity’ who had been subject to press intrusion and revelations. It was a complex case that required a lot of additional research from the team, and they put in a lot of extra time, at a busy period of the year, to ensure that they were able to put a strong case forward.

On the day, they were praised by the judge for their energy and passion, and particularly for their skeleton argument, with the judge commenting that she preferred its style to that of their opponents. Overall, however, the judge marginally found in favour of the team from Cardiff whose experience shone through in the end. They went on to reach the third round of the competition, and huge congratulations to them.

Yusuf and Venus both stated that they had benefitted significantly from the experience and that it had improved both their advocacy skills and their confidence.

Overview

Landmark Chambers are a London based Chambers who run, on an annual basis, two competitions designed to test students on areas of practice that are central to their operations. The format is an intense process, with around twenty-five teams participating in one round, with each individual having ten minutes to argue their point of the appeal. Of the teams that participate in the first round, only the top eight proceed to the next round, the quarter-finals.

The competition is also a networking opportunity for the students as the first round takes place at their Chambers and includes a Masterclass in Property Law, and a Question and Answer session designed to assist the understanding of the students of the pupillage application process.

2018/19

The representatives of the University in this competition are selected by members of faculty following an application process, based on an advocacy performance, experience of mooting skills, and knowledge of property law, as the mooting scenarios often involve very detailed points of law within this field. Further, in order to broaden the numbers of students who can participate, we do not allow the same students to represent the University in multiple mooting competitions in one year. This year the team of two that was selected comprised of Varaidzo Kamhunga (3^rd year) and Hannah Hutchison (3^rd year).

The problem itself involved an interesting question about vacant possession and whether or not possession had been surrendered in an ambiguous scenario. Varaidzo and Hannah demonstrated exceptional passion and enthusiasm in throwing themselves into researching the law and also the skill of advocacy as they sought to think of ways to convey their point with power and persuasion.

On the day, their professionalism and passion paid off as they were rewarded with a place in the top eight, not thrown by the judge’s request to focus exclusively on one of their three points and to ignore the balance!

In the quarter finals they were drawn against Bristol, and had to confront an even more challenging scenario, dealing with the interpretation of ‘building’ and ‘property’ in the context of possession proceedings. Once again they familiarised themselves with practitioners guides and obscure case law to prepare and, again, immersed themselves fully in the challenge before setting off to the University of Bristol.

On this occasion, they came just short, but still enjoyed the experience immensely and learned a lot from the process, including the difference between academic land law and the practice of the subject! Congratulations to both of them.

Overview

Landmark Chambers are a London based Chambers who run, on an annual basis, two competitions designed to test students on areas of practice that are central to their operations. The format is an intense process, with around twenty-five teams participating in one round, with each individual having ten minutes to argue their point of the appeal. Of the teams that participate in the first round, only the top eight proceed to the next round, the quarter-finals.

The competition is also a networking opportunity for the students as the first round takes place at their Chambers and also includes a Masterclass in Administrative/Public Law, and a Question and Answer session designed to assist the understanding of the students of the pupillage application process.

2018/19

The representatives of the University in this competition are selected by members of faculty following an application process, based on an advocacy performance, experience of mooting skills, and knowledge of property law, as the mooting scenarios often involve very detailed points of law within this field. Further, in order to broaden the numbers of students who can participate, we do not allow the same students to represent the University in multiple mooting competitions in one year. This year the team of two that was selected comprised of Saira Jawaid (2^nd year Senior Status) and Chris Brain (3^rd year).

The problem itself centred on the decision of a Planning Committee to grant permission for a wind farm within close proximity of a residential dwelling and the powers of the homeowner to challenge the decision pursuant to Judicial Review. This was a highly technical point of law that required a great deal of thought and detail in order to understand the broad points and refine the nuances. Saira and Chris worked hard to engage with the problem, and composed thoughtful and deliberate arguments, supported by robust skeleton arguments.

On the day, their efforts were not quite enough and they didn’t make the top eight, although they were praised by the judge on their efforts and shone against the twenty four teams that took part. Both Saira and Chris gained a lot from the process, and enjoyed the experience.

Overview

The medical law mooting competition is organised by Dr Tracey Elliott at the University of Leicester, and has provided an outstanding forum for the argument and analysis of areas of law that are specific to medical issues. The format is similar to other moots except for one point which is that one moot problem is used and the students are required to prepare arguments for both sides. In the preliminary rounds they argue once for each side and the top eight teams proceed to the quarter finals. The teams that did not qualify get the benefit of a Masterclass from a local practitioner.

2018/19

The application process for this competition coincided with the applications for the medical law debating competition and it was pleasing that everyone who applied was rewarded with a place in one of the teams. In the event, the team for the medical law mooting competition was Hollie Bishop (3^rd year) and Louise Lynch (3^rd year).

The scenario was based around medical negligence, with questions of remoteness in respect of the waiting time, and consent of the patient. These were bolstered by a question on whether damages for a procedure that were illegal in this jurisdiction but permissible elsewhere could be recovered. The preparations took a lot of time at the texts and journals, not to mention the printer as five bundles of each side needed to be printed, but the team worked hard and well to ensure that they were ready.

On the day, both Louise and Hollie performed superbly, even switching sides when it transpired that their opponents had not realised which side they were supposed to be arguing and lacked the flexibility to change. In spite of this enormous obstacle, they won both their moots and only narrowly missed out on qualifying for the top eight, finishing ninth after the first two rounds. Both Hollie and Louise found that their skills improved considerably over the course of the competition.

Overview

The Medical Law Debating Competition is an initiative run by the University of Bristol’s student body, sponsored by Irwin Mitchell Solicitors. The format was simple, each team is comprised of two students and each round had a statement that the team had to either propose or oppose. The judge would score the teams and the highest scoring team would progress to the next round. This year, the topics for the first two rounds were released ahead of the competition but the final round was unseen and had to be prepared on the day.

2018/19

The application process for this competition coincided with the applications for the medical law mooting competition and it was pleasing that everyone who applied was rewarded with a place in one of the teams. In the event, the teams for the medical law debates were Rohan Ghosal (2^nd year) and Abigail Rainey (2^nd year) in one team and Jodie Melberg (2^nd year) and Danielle Fisher (3^rd year) in another team. Both teams spent a considerable amount of time researching the relevant areas of law, and practiced their presentations with members of faculty, including Trish Rees, the Convenor of Medical Law. This was particularly difficult for the members of the teams who had never performed a public presentation before, but their confidence levels only grew over the course of the practice sessions.

On the day itself, Bristol hosted the event with generosity and the judges praised the quality of the submissions. In the face of stiff competition, Jodie and Danielle were narrowly defeated in round 1, while Rohan and Abigail progressed to round 2, only to be squeezed out for a place in the Final which was an all Bristol affair. The quality of their preparation and presentations were honoured, however, as Rohan was presented with the award of Top Individual Debater; a notable achievement both to him individually and to all four students for their group effort in researching the areas.

Overview

Along with the Client Interviewing Competition, the Negotiations Competition has its roots in the United States, where it remains the largest of the domestic competitions across the world. However, the domestic competition in England and Wales is the second largest and has developed to this level with significant help from the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), first in their capacity as sponsors, and latterly as the organisers of the entire competition.

In a sense it is the easiest to explain. A team of two represents one side of a dispute or opportunity and another team of two represents the other side. They have fifty minutes to negotiate an agreement deploying the many skills of negotiation in order to facilitate the proceedings. They must also perform a self-reflection of the negotiation, explaining what they did well and what they could have done better. There are Regional Competitions and the qualifying teams compete at the National Competition, which is hosted by the winner from the previous year. The National Champions are invited to represent England and Wales at the International Competition.

2018/19

Following an internal competition, four students were selected to represent the University, as each University is permitted to enter two teams. This year, the selected students were Lawrence Thomas (2^nd year), George Gordziejewicz (2^nd year), Justine Mears (1^st year) and Josh Creutzberg (3^rd year).

The scenarios with which they were confronted were complicated and varied. One involved a negotiation between a museum and an indigenous people who felt that they were being poorly portrayed at the display. The second was a negotiation for a marketing campaign between a brand and a band. Both teams worked hard to hone their skills, with a particular emphasis on conciliatory negotiations, and to master the facts of the case.

On the day, they discovered the difficulty of facing teams with different styles, and engaged well with teams who matched their style, and others who preferred a more adversarial approach. Both teams received praise from the judges, with Justine being marked out by one judge for particularly high feedback. On the day, they were unlucky not to finish in the top two, surrounded by an exceptionally strong Regional and some equally excellent teams. All four, however, learned much from the process, and developed an area of skill that had not been anticipated in starting their law school careers.

Particular mention must go to Brooke Martinson (3^rd year) and Shabaz Dosanjh (1^st year Senior Status) who were of great help in practicing with the teams ahead of the competition and without whom the process would have been much harder.

Overview

Of the three main competitions to display non-adversarial skills, the most recently established is the Mediation Competition, which tests the abilities of students to mediate a range of situations, from family disputes through to complicated commercial arguments. There is no regional stage, and so represents a gathering of many law schools from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, all of whom are keen to win the team title as well as the Individual Mediator awards that are presented every year.

The competition itself requires a team of three with a particularly interesting element being that the make-up of the teams changes in each round. Each competitor will mediate twice, but always with a different partner, requiring great flexibility as individual mediators work with each other to deal with potentially difficult clients. Universities can also send additional participants to role-play as clients in the competition.

A key part of the competition, as with many of this sort, is the educational component and this is reflected by the presence of a Masterclass on the first day, normally run by the sponsors of the event, The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). The winning team hosts the event the following year, and is invited to participate at the International Competition, the venue for which alternates between the United States of America and Europe.

2018/19

Swansea entered this competition for the first time in 2018/19 and shortlisted a team of three based on expressions of interest and a practice run through past scenarios. The team were Yusuf Ali (2^nd year), Cal Reid-Hutchings (3^rd year), and Josh Creutzberg (3^rd year).

Preparations for the event, which is held annually at the end of January, were hampered by the proximity to the students’ January examinations, which, of course, took priority. However, they engaged fully and with energy, committing a day to preparing the scenarios and working on strategies to deal with the various issues raised by a dispute over a dentist’s surgery, a claim over an intrusive drone, and a family dispute over a caravan site. All three worked hard to develop an understanding of the principles of non-confrontational resolution and apply the skills to the fact pattern with which they had been provided.

This year’s event was hosted by the previous year’s winners, the University of West of England, and they had set up an excellent welcome and greeting session in which many of the uncertainties of this debut team were answered! A Masterclass by Graham Massie, the CEO of the sponsors, CEDR, who gave an excellent insight to the various principles of the skill, and some fantastic tips for the students in preparing ahead of the competition, followed this.

On the day, I unfortunately was presenting at a Conference in Oxford, but fortunately Professor Angela Devereux volunteered to watch the team in action and assist with feedback. Angela told me that the team worked exceptionally well together and engaged well with the process, working hard to assist the mock-clients in coming to a resolution with which they were happy.

I re-joined the team for the closing ceremony and the award ceremony, with all three of the team confirming that they had enjoyed the experience and had learned a lot from the process. Although they didn’t place in the top 3 (with the University of Glasgow and University of West of England coming joint first) when the full results were announced, they finished an exceptionally impressive joint fourth, out of the twenty teams that participated. Considering that their first full mediation was at the competition, and their practice time had been seriously limited by the timing of the competition, this was an immensely impressive result and all three confirmed that they were very happy by their placing.

We are looking to enter the competition again in 2019/20, when the University of Glasgow will host the event.

Overview

The Client Interviewing Competition has run since 1984 and has experienced a strong and deserved growth spurt over the past five years as Law Schools develop an enhanced appreciation for the importance of what have traditionally been called ‘soft skills’, in this case the skill of interviewing a client for the first time.

The competition itself involves a team of two students from each University who are given a general topic and, for each client, a short memorandum, which is normally no longer than two or three lines. From this, they must meet a new client, gain information, advise them as to the law, and give some practical advice and options that they can take forward and consider. They must then reflect on the interview, how it has progressed, and what they could have done better and what they did well. All within forty minutes!

The competition is divided into regions with around twelve teams in each region. From this the top three scorers (over two interviews) proceed to the National Competition where they must perform three interviews and from where a National Champion is crowned. That team then progresses to the International Competition where they represent England and Wales.

2018/19

This year we held an Internal Competition to decide on the team that would represent the Law School at the Competition. The topic was criminal law, with an emphasis on theft. Eight teams took part in the internal competition and put into practice the skills that they had learned during lectures and a practice session. They certainly had to work hard as the clients were briefed to be strong with them, and thanks are due to Varaidzo Kamhunga, Yasmin Daly, and Sophia Sheikh who played the roles with admirable conviction.

The skill levels demonstrated were very impressive and there were some high marks awarded, but in the end, the winning team was from the GDL, Meryl Hanmer and Caryl Thomas. They demonstrated exceptional calm under pressure and were clear in both their advice and options, which boded well for the competition itself.

This year the University of Exeter hosted the Wales and South West Regional, and Swansea participated along with eleven other teams. It was an intense couple of rounds with very difficult clients and problems, but Caryl and Meryl were prepared, having been practicing against members of faculty who fabricated determined obstinacy to force the students to find their very best form. This translated well to the competition and Swansea qualified for the Nationals as Regional Champions, with very high scores making their abilities very clear. They received high praise from the judges, many of whom were from faculties of other Universities within the region.

That set Meryl and Caryl up for the Nationals, which were hosted by the University of West of England. The addition of a third client made an already long day even longer, not helped by the clash with the Wales and Scotland rugby clash, but watched by family members, they once again performed exceptionally well, and consistently, dealing with three more criminal cases, including a client who was obsessed with taking selfies, including of the solicitors!

In the end, Meryl and Caryl finished fourth and said that they had enjoyed the whole experience and had gained a huge amount of insight into the additional skills. This represents Swansea’s best performance in the competition, and an excellent way to re-introduce it to the student body.

The Times Mooting Competition 2019/20

This mooting competition is open to all students who are currently registered at a Law School. It is entered independently from the Law School, indeed your mooting partner does not have to be from the same Law School as you. Sign up online.

The mooting problem has been published on the website together with the rules. You will see that the deadline for entry is the 15^th July and by this date you and your partner will need to submit a skeleton argument. I have uploaded a video on drafting skeleton arguments to the Law Communication Skills and Competitions blackboard page and if you are not a member of this I can add you upon request.

As per the rules, I cannot assist you with the substance, but I am happy to talk to you generally about skeleton arguments if you would like to contact me.

Matthew

National Speed Mooting Competition 2019/2020

The Eighth National Speed Mooting Competition has been announced and details can be found online. If you are interested, then get your entry in quickly as we are told that places can be filled with speed. This is an exciting opportunity that combines education with competition!

Matthew