Not only have Quadrant Chambers developed an innovative mooting platform which meets the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they have adapted this system seamlessly to the post-COVID world. The Quadrant Chambers Virtual Speed Moot marked my first online mooting experience, and it certainly did not disappoint.

With over 400 initial applicants, 64 participants competed in six rounds in a virtual moot hall, the software carefully curated to mimic a realistic mooting experience. Our virtual avatars moved around the hall, able to ‘sit’ and talk at tables between rounds, which gave the competition a friendly, relaxed atmosphere. After each round, we were allocated our latest role and court room. Certainly, as I progressed through the rounds, I appreciated being able to appear miraculously in each new court room, instead of running manically around in-person.

The moot problem was released two days before the competition, giving us time to prepare submissions on behalf of both the Appellant and Respondent. Despite the relatively brief facts, the moot problem invited us to consider the complex penalty rule, which even Lord Sumption conceded in El Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV [2016] AC 1172 was ‘a haphazardly constructed edifice which has not weathered well’ [3]. This was one of two authorities we were allowed to cite, together with Vivienne Westwood Ltd v Conduit Street Development Ltd [2017] EWHC 350 (Ch); [2017] L&TR 23, to address whether the clause in question was a penalty. Was it a price adjustment clause, a primary obligation which fell beyond the scope of the court’s penal jurisdiction, or a secondary obligation capable of being penal? Was the obligation itself so unconscionable or extravagant as to constitute an unenforceable penalty? It presented an enjoyable challenge to engage with such important contractual, commercial debates.

In each knock-out round, we presented submissions in just seven minutes, which meant legal arguments had to be presented as selectively as possible. In the end, I represented the Appellant and Respondent each on three occasions, and as I progressed through the competition, I enjoyed refining my submissions for each role, and listening to the excellent submissions made by my opponents. 

Members of chambers kindly judged each round, making thoughtful interventions which challenged me to think on my feet and consider the moot problem from new perspectives. Their feedback after each round was invaluable, both for helping me tweak my submissions, and for helping me improve my broader advocacy skills. It was a testament to the chamber’s wider culture that every judge was so friendly and willing to answer questions about life at Quadrant or the commercial Bar more generally.

Competing in the Quadrant Chambers Virtual Speed Moot was a highly rewarding experience, thanks to those working hard to make the competition as smooth as possible. From my own experience of running online private client conferences, I know firsthand how much behind-the-scenes work went into the creation of what I experienced as a seamless, user-friendly event. During the final, I also had the pleasure of speaking to some of the team, who not only helped me figure out where I was supposed to go but were friendly and supportive to both me and my impressive opponent, Imogen, before and afterwards.

It was a privilege to compete amongst so many talented advocates, and I would highly recommend anyone considering a career at the commercial bar to apply next year.

Eleanor Schaff, City Law School