Although the days of needing to host all events virtually are – thankfully! – behind us, an impressive piece of software allows the Quadrant Chambers Virtual Speed Moot to be hosted online, whilst still retaining the collegiate feeling of an in-person moot court. The efficiency and ease of access to this online platform not only made competing in this moot convenient for those based outside of London but also made for an especially engaging moot.

Three days prior to competing, the moot problem was provided. The problem concerned a commercial charterparty (the contract) between a ship’s owners and the charterers; replicating a typical case that a member of Chambers might be instructed to act in, given Quadrant’s preeminent reputation in shipping law. The legal challenge in the appeal case we were faced with was twofold. Firstly, given the innominate term in the charterparty, were the breaches already determined by the arbitrators repudiatory in nature, thereby giving the charterers the right to have terminated the contract? Secondly, in the event that damages were owed to the charterers, should their loss of bargain damages be reduced to a nominal sum only on the basis that they themselves may have been unable to perform their future payment obligations under the contract?

To enable the moot to focus on our application of the law and advocacy skills, our submissions on the termination issue were limited to the leading authority Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (the “HONGKONG FIR”) [1962] 2 QB 26. On the damages issue, we were directed to consider only Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd (the “GLORY WEALTH”) [2014] Q.B. 1080 and its discussion therein of two other key authorities. Both these authorities naturally lent themselves to a broad range of possible submissions and invited us to consider the commercial motives of the clients we were representing. This allowed competitors to make full use of advocacy techniques and application of the facts of the specific problem in front of us in support of the applicable case law.

The moot itself consisted of six consecutive knock-out rounds, with 64 initial competitors securing a place, and a further 200+ applicants on the waiting list. We had just 7 minutes each to make our submissions before the judge declared which competitor would progress to the next round. After each round, Members of Chambers – comprised of a mix of junior tenants and senior silks – who had been acting as the judge would provide feedback on both competitors’ submissions. The feedback from all the judges was immensely helpful. I found the feedback allowed me to hone my submissions on the case in hand before competing in the next round and provided me with an opportunity to gain some excellent general advocacy pointers, which any prospective barrister would be advised to carry over into future practice.

In addition to the test of mental endurance as each round rapidly flowed into the next for successful competitors, I found one of the most intriguing aspects of the moot was not knowing in any given round whether you would be appearing on behalf of the Appellant or the Respondent until shortly before the round commenced. This uncertainty necessitated thinking deeply about both sides of the problem and tested one’s mental agility to be able to respond to unforeseen questions from the judges about either side of the case.

From the first ‘rehearsal’ for competitors to acquaint themselves with the virtual moot court, through to the judges announcing their decision in the final, the staff and members of Chambers could not have been friendlier or more helpful. Whether it was a quick IT troubleshooting question or questions for the barristers about life in Chambers after each round, it was abundantly clear that all competitors were warmly welcomed, and that everyone from Chambers wanted to make the event the roaring success that it was.

It was a pleasure to listen to each of my fellow competitors make their submissions, and a genuine honour to be selected as the eventual winner, especially in light of the quality of submissions from my opponent in the final, Henry, and my opponents in earlier rounds. 

There can be no question whatsoever that anyone considering practising at the commercial Bar would benefit enormously from participating in this moot— and equally undoubtedly they would find doing so as thoroughly enjoyable as I did.