Legal Village

Scoring moot points

Posted 4/07/2008 by Daniel Berger and Beverley Cottrell

On the 26 June Daniel Berger and Beverley Cottrell, from the University of Hertfordshire, competed in the finals of the ESU – Essex Court Chambers National Mooting Competition. Here’s their account of what turned out to be a long, exhausting and nail-biting day.

Semi-final/final day 26th June 2008

9am

Beverley:We knew this would be a long day, whatever happened, as the semi-final and the final of this prestigious mooting competition were to be held on the same day. The semi-final was due to start at 10am at ESU’s London headquarters, Dartmouth House in Mayfair, while the final, to which unsuccessful semi-finalists were invited, was to be held at the Royal Courts of Justice at 6pm. This was to be followed by a reception at Essex Court Chambers at 8pm.

Still unable to quite believe we were in the semi-final, we - Daniel Berger, first-year LLB student and Beverley Cottrell, CPE student at the University of Hertfordshire – made our way to the beautiful listed building, one of the finest in Mayfair, in which the semi-final was to be held. Climbing the grand French marble staircase leading to the first floor, to the two drawing rooms where the semi-finals would be taking place simultaneously, passing the large bust of Sir Winston Churchill, one of the first Chairmen of the English Speaking Union, was a slightly surreal experience and I couldn’t quite believe that I was actually meant to be there.

For our semi-final, we were judged by Mr Bernard Eder QC and Mr Jern-Fei Ng.  We began our submissions, but it wasn’t long before our judges started firing pertinent questions at us. We addressed them as well as we could but did not feel we had acquitted ourselves particularly well. I was grilled to such an extent that I was unable even to start my second submission before seeing the time keeper raise his “time elapsed” sheet.

Daniel: Beverley and I had battled our way through four previous rounds of the ESU-Essex Court Chambers National Mooting Competition, to appear in the semi-finals at Dartmouth House in Green Park, London, the headquarters of the English Speaking Union, and were determined just to enjoy our day.

We certainly felt that we had a very strong case for our semi against University of Glasgow, and although full of confidence, felt that looking further on into the competition to potentially an evening final would, in some way, interfere with the thrill of competing in the semi-final.

The semi-final fixture commenced at 10am, eagerly watched by some 15 supporters from our University, including eight lecturers, and various others - presumably supporting Glasgow. The case we were to argue was a fictional one: Spicey Ltd v SAS Ltd, based on a claim for damages in both common law and equity.

Being a first-year undergraduate law student, this scenario had previously filled me with dread. After all, I had only studied the basics of contract law for a year and will wait for a further two years before attending my very first equity lecture! However, after hundreds of hours of reading, not only textbooks and cases, but also legal journal articles and academic analysis, I felt ready to answer pretty much anything the judges had to throw at me. Thankfully, having a partner like Beverley, with a cool head and a fastidious working philosophy, meant that I had never once ever had to worry whether she had put in enough studying time.

As lead counsel, I was to commence proceedings, which after a reasonable start (by my reckoning), seemed to culminate in a running verbal battle with the lead judge, Mr Bernard Eder QC. I was fairly concerned, and very grateful to sit down after my twenty minutes and allow Glasgow’s representatives to present their case, safe in the knowledge that I would have my five-minute right-to-reply to placate the judges.

After both of our two opponents had spoken, it was the turn of my partner Beverley to make her case. To my horror, it seemed that Mr Eder was subjecting her to a similar baptism of fire and she too was grateful for her seat at the end of her fifteen minutes.

11am

Beverley: We left the judges to their deliberations, retiring to the walnut-panelled Churchill Room, rather subdued.  Our supporters were trying to be positive but we did not hold out any hope. We were genuinely stunned to hear Mr Bernard Eder QC announce that by a narrow margin, the judges had decided to award the moot to the University of Hertfordshire.

City University had won the other semi-final, beating former winners the University of Bristol. On the toss of a coin, it was decided that each team would have to present the opposite side of the argument for the final. While we had put some time into preparing the opposite side, most of our energies had gone into our semi-final submissions and we felt ill-prepared.  Essex Court had kindly made a room available to each side for the afternoon, where we could finalise our preparations for the evening.  We tried to eat some of the delicious lunch provided for us by the ESU but were almost too nervous to eat. Our supporters, however, made up for our lack of appetite!

Daniel: Having had a ten-minute recess, the judges reconvened the court for the verdict. We had won! Perhaps something in the way that Beverley and I had stuck to our guns under heavy fire pleased the judges and we were informed that we would face City University in the final at the Royal Courts of Justice at 6pm. (City University having won their concurrently-run semi-final in the adjacent room by beating University of Bristol.)

After the coin-toss, we were to argue the other (respondents’) side of the case in the final, to that which we had argued in the semi. The same could be said of City, who had won their case as respondents, but would now be appellants.

After a five-hour break, in order to brush up our arguments at Essex Court Chambers in Lincoln's Inn Fields (the sponsors of the competition), we took the short walk to the Royal Courts of Justice to be informed that, alongside Richard Millet QC and Dr Martin Lau of Essex Court, the final would be judged by the Right Honourable Lord Steyn. Oh dear. Lord Steyn had sat on the judging panel at the House of Lords in the case of Farley v Skinner [2001] – the main case I was about to use to support the first submission of my argument! I sincerely hoped that my analysis of the case was spot-on or we would be severely hampered.

6pm

Beverley: After a welcome by the ESU and Essex Court, the three judges came in and seated themselves at the bench, which seemed very far away.  Our colleagues, as counsel for the appellants, began the moot.  The performance of lead counsel was polished, confident and impressive.  I relaxed a little, thinking that it would be impossible for us to top that performance, that all I could do would be to acquit myself as well as possible and then happily accept the Scarman shield when it was all over.

The judges retired for a short time, before returning to deliver their verdicts on who had won the law. Lord Steyn, after congratulating us all, spoke briefly about advocacy in general, giving us some very pertinent advice and stressing above all the importance of politeness and good manners. As his Lordship started to announce the result, I heard him say Dan’s name – then the courtroom erupted into cheering and clapping, while Dan and I sat in stunned silence.  We had actually won!

Daniel: After a tense final, I felt that both teams had given a fairly good account of themselves. I, myself, and Beverley had received a much easier time of it from the judges, compared to the grilling we had both received in the semi, and Lord Steyn hadn’t rebutted anything I had recited from the Farley case.

After a fifteen-minute recess to allow the judges to consider their verdicts, my heart was in my mouth. I hoped for the best, but wasn’t sure if the lack of intervention from the judges signified that they were happy with our team’s performance, or dumbfounded by what they considered to be our lack of good legal reasoning!

Lord Steyn delivered two judgments. One on the law, and one on the mooting prowess of the teams. Winning the law certainly does not mean you have won the moot. In fact, a lot of the time, a successful mooting team will show flair and creativity in knowing the law is against them. However, in the case of our final, we had won both.

8pm

Beverley: After being photographed with the judges and the silver mace, we left the Royal Courts and walked, trance-like, back to Essex Court Chambers to enjoy the reception they had laid on.  We had worked very hard on all the moot problems throughout the competition, and knew we could not have tried harder than we did, but we had never in our wildest dreams imagined that we would emerge as winners. 

It had been a long day but it was undoubtedly one of the most exciting and satisfying days we had ever experienced.  We had been on a steep learning curve since joining the mooting team as complete novices at the University of Hertfordshire, the previous September.  Had we been told at that point that we would be the winners of the most prestigious mooting competition in the country nine months later we would have thought it a ridiculous suggestion. 

Thanks are due to all our supporters, staff and students, at the University of Hertfordshire Law School, to our competitors along the way, from whom we have learnt a huge amount, and of course to ESU and Essex Court for organising the competition and generously providing the substantial prize money.    

Daniel: The exhilaration of knowing we were the ESU-Essex Court Chambers National Mooting Champions for 2008, meant that the presentation ceremony, photographs, and in particular, shaking Lord Steyn’s hand passed in a whirlwind of excitement to be replayed in my mind numerous times once I was safely home, much, much later that night! The prizes given to us at the evening reception at Essex Court Chambers, included £1,000 prize money each, to both Beverley and myself, and the offer of a mini-pupillage each at Essex Court. The ceremonial silver mace (formerly known as The Observer Mace), was presented to us by Lord Steyn earlier on at the Royal Courts of Justice.

I was particularly happy that we had won the competition in front of our loyal group of supporters, who at this stage had grown considerably in numbers, once work commitments had released them for the evening final, and now included many senior members of the University faculty.

I now look forward to studying for the rest of my law degree with the knowledge that the skills I have picked up from my attendance at our regular Monday night mooting team meetings and the incredible experience I have garnered from competing on a national level will stand me in good stead for a future career at the Bar.

  Daniel Berger and Beverley Cottrell