Originally created to address the challenges of mooting during the pandemic, Quadrant Chambers Virtual Speed Moot has proven itself to be much more than a placeholder for in-person moots. The moot last week was a lively and efficient format that reminded us that good advocacy shouldn’t be confined to the courtroom.

The moot problem was provided to us three days before the competition. It concerned a dispute arising from a commercial broadband contract. Our task was to prepare submissions on behalf of both the Appellant and Respondent addressing two grounds of appeal. Firstly, did a clause governing the price and speed of the broadband confer on the buyer a right of election, the exercise of which was final and irrevocable? Secondly, did the deposit clause contained in the contract constitute an unenforceable penalty clause? The imaginary damages at stake were $3m, so the pressure was on for us to present our client’s case persuasively. But constantly switching roles between Appellant and Respondent meant we couldn’t afford to favour one side over another.

We were directed to consider two key authorities when preparing our submissions: Reardon Smith Line Limited v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1963] AC 691 and Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67. This focused guidance allowed us to jump straight into applying the key legal principles to the facts – it was a format that prioritised sharp critical analysis over time-consuming legal research. By focusing on the same authorities, we could also engage meaningfully with arguments put forward by our opponents. It was interesting to observe the different approaches taken by mooters to the legal issues at hand and a useful reminder that there are rarely right answers in commercial law.

The competition consisted of six knock-out rounds, with 64 competitors taking part, and an impressive 200+ applicants on the waiting list. Each round lasted just seven minutes, including time for judicial interventions. This required us to be both concise and adaptable on our feet, adjusting our submissions as the round progressed, and maintaining composure even as the final countdown began. Members of Quadrant Chambers, from junior barristers up to KCs, generously judged the competition, providing useful feedback on both the substance and style of our submissions after each round. The feedback offered a rare opportunity to reflect on our performance and to refine our arguments before facing the next judge’s scrutiny, making it an incredibly efficient way to improve our mooting skills. The format also tested our stamina – something I must admit was aided by a quick coffee in time for my final showdown against Angus, a formidable opponent!

There was barely a moment to catch our breath as we dashed between the virtual courtrooms. But for those who managed to find time, Quadrant Chambers was busy hosting talks on mini-pupillage and pupillage opportunities at their set. We could also chat to other competitors about mooting (and life more generally) while we waited for feedback and between rounds, fostering a sense of camaraderie despite the competitive nature of the event.

Overall, the moot was a great opportunity to put our advocacy skills to the test and to take a step closer to life at the Bar. It was a privilege to participate alongside and in front of so many talented advocates, and I would recommend the experience without hesitation to anyone considering a career at the commercial bar.