advice for moot competition

catherine22

Hi every1

im taking part in a mooting competition on behalf of my university. this is my first time doing it and it is the universitys first time entering as well. i was just wondering if anyone else has taken part in these and if so could you tell me what to expect, how to prepare, etc

i have only just received the problem but we havent been told yet what side we will be representing. a few of my lecturers have agreed to help and they are barristers as well which is a huge bonus but im so nervous i mean i have no experience whatsoever in this type of thing.

its not speaking in front of people which is freaking me out its more the preparing for it. i have already got myself down to the courts and watched other barristers, etc but i just need advice from someone who has done this before

thanks

Stirling

Firstly best of luck

Just out of curiosity what University is it for?

I finished my Law Degree in UCC last year and we actually had to do a Moot as part of the Degree Year - nerve wracking at the start but when you go about it the right way it's grand.

The problem is crucial because ulike what you see in Court you are not able to determine facts beyond those presented to you except for inferences drawn from those facts so make ensure that you don't engage in excessive speculation about what might be the case - stick with what you're given.

It's difficult to begin without being given a side because you need to make your reading targeted. Will you know in advance of the competition?

As for how best to approach the problem is there any chance you could post it up here so that we can have a look at it?

If it helps in any way I can send you my Moot Problem and submission. It might give you an idea of how one comes from the other

catherine22

hi Sterling

thanks so much for the reply- i was starting to wonder if there was anyone out there. so below is the problem, i tried to upload it as an attachment but it kept failing- dont know why!

i have only just received the problem so to be honest i havent even looked at it yet myself im too busy juggling assignments. the moot is in three weeks and there are two of us doing it. the first person will be lead council and they will take the first ground for appeal and the second person is the junior and they will take the second. we will be representing the appellant in this case.

So please feel free to tell me your thoughts on the below. Im not actually looking for answers as such just more peoples opinion, etc im going to need all the help i can get

ps sterling i would really appreciate if you could send me your problem and submission just so i can see the amount of work that is involved

oh and its for queens in belfast

Blackmore Borough Council v. Claxton Pharmaceuticals
In the House of Lords


John Blight was employed by Claxton Pharmaceuticals for twenty five years. His job was to clean and sterilise medical equipment. In carrying out this task, he was exposed to a cleaning agent, toxite. Mr Blight was also fond of a special single malt whisky from a remote Scottish island which contains a slightly different variety of toxite resulting from the soil in that island. He drank this whisky in moderation.

Toxite is not a dangerous chemical for most of the population but a small number of people suffer a severe reaction that incapacitates them so that they require constant care. John Blight is one of the small group of persons who suffered an adverse reaction to toxite. He is now in a care home run by Blackmore Borough Council. Like mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure, medical science is unable to determine how illness results: one exposure is sufficient but which exposure triggers the illness cannot be determined. Accordingly the toxite from the whisky or that from the cleaning agent might have triggered Mr Blight’s illness. Claxton Pharmaceuticals offered John Blight a modest settlement which he accepted. The whisky manufacturer has gone out of business.

Blackmore BC have a statutory duty to provide the necessary care facilities for Mr Blight. Given Mr Blight’s low savings Blackmore BC are duty bound under the relevant legislation to provide their services for free. As a result, Blackmore BC brought an action against Claxton Pharmaceuticals seeking damages for the cost of caring for Mr Blight. At first instance, Justice Lightning held that Claxton Pharmaceuticals were not liable because they could not be said to have caused the damage to Mr Blight, applying the reasoning of the House of Lords in Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] 2 WLR 1027. If he was wrong on this point, there would be no liability anyhow because, applying Islington LBC v University College London Hospital NHS Trust [2005] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 387, Claxton Pharmaceuticals did not owe the council a duty of care. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision unanimously but granted leave to appeal.


On appeal, the council raises two grounds:

1) The ruling in Barker v Corus does not compel the conclusion that Claxton Pharmaceuticals did not cause the injury to Mr Blight. Moreover, Barker v Corus must be interpreted having regard to s.3 of the Compensation Act 2006. The Act overrules the judgment in the context of joint and several liability in mesothelioma litigation but more generally suggests that Parliament’s intention was to widen the reach of the Fairchild rule (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32), not restrict it as the House of Lords did in Barker v Corus.

2) The Court of Appeal erred in finding that no duty of care was owed as the Islington case can be distinguished on the facts. More generally, the tort of negligence evolves by incremental steps, therefore the categories of negligence cannot be closed. The law should impose liability on parties who create a situation where others suffer loss, in particular when such liability would not have any detrimental effects on the conduct of the defendant.

Stirling

Well just taking a glance at it it's clear that it is based on Tort.

As a starting point before you're clear on the issue of what position you'll be dealing with I'd just start with general reading on negligence and causation.

There is also an issue with the "Egg-Shell Skull Rule" as a consequence of the fact that John is one of those people who will suffer an adverse reaction to the chemical in question.

Doing general reading at this stage will mean that you will be able to get a global view of the issues involved.

Specific reference is made to three cases in the Problem and I would strongly recommend you read these VERY carefully as they are likely to form the mainstay of the legal argument.

I have sent three documents to you by Private Message:

1) The Moot Problem I had - It's based on Constitutional Law.
2) The Guidelines we were given.
3) My submission - you will note that I was Counsel for Respondent 4.

If you have any questions about it just let me know!