COMPETITION RULES 2019
1. Definitions
1.1. "Woman" means a person who self-identifies as female or non-binary. This includes trans, gender-queer, intersex, androgynous, bi-gender or gender-fluid people who may not have been assigned as female at birth but now identifies as such.
Please note: self-identification will not be questioned.
2. Teams
2.1. Each team participating in the National Intervarsity Women’s Mooting Tournament (‘the Tournament’) will be composed of three (3) mooters. Teams may either elect to have three speaking members who rotate roles, or designate one member as the 'team solicitor'.
2.2. The Tournament organisers may, at their absolute discretion, cap the number of teams that are eligible to participate.
2.3. All team members must read the Competition Rules carefully and are expected to be familiar with their contents.
2.4. Unless otherwise stated in these rules, the penalties for breach of these rules will be at the discretion of the Tournament Convenors. Please see paragraph 9 for the appeals process.
2.5. No team shall have more than one (1) mooter who has participated in an international mooting competition. An international mooting competition includes, but is not limited to, the following: the Philip C Jessup International Law Moot; the Willem C Vis International Arbitration Moot; the ELSA Moot Court Competition on WTO Law; the Jean-Pictet Competition; and the World Human Rights Moot Court Competition. An international mooting competition includes the national rounds of any international mooting competition (e.g. Jessup Australian rounds.)
2.6. Teams may elect to have a coach. Coaches may provide general feedback and advice but are not to devise written or oral arguments for the team, or otherwise assist with researching the problem question issues. Oral and written arguments are to be devised solely by team members. Coaches are welcome to attend the Tournament, but may not view moots other than those in which their team is competing.
2.7. Each University may enter 1-2 teams. The Tournament organisers may, at their absolute discretion, permit a university to enter more than two teams if special circumstances are shown. Please email womensmoot@suls.org.au if your university is interested in sending more than two teams.
2.8. No team may receive material help from any person outside the team, including their coach, in the preparation of their written submissions. Some examples of 'material help' are assistance with substantive research, writing or drafting submissions, and discussion of the legal principles underlying the problem question.
2.9. All competitors should be current students. Competitors may also have graduated at the end of the semester immediately prior to the competition, subject to the qualification that they have not been admitted into practice.
3. Written submissions
3.1. Written submissions are electronically filed by attaching the document to an email to the Tournament Convenors, Julia Tran and Kavya Nagpal, at womensmoot@suls.org.au. Upon submission, teams should receive an acknowledgement of receipt shortly. Teams should re-send their submissions if they do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt within one hour of filing.
3.2. Written submissions for the Appellant are to be electronically filed by 5:00 pm (AEST) on Friday, 13 September 2019.
3.3. The Tournament Convenors will email the relevant teams' Appellant submissions to each of the teams that will be mooting against that team as Respondent by 5:00 pm the next day.
3.4. Each team must electronically file two (2) written submissions for the Respondent, one responding to each of the Appellant' submissions that they have received, by 5:00 pm (AEST) on Thursday, 26 September 2019.
3.5. Written submissions may be updated prior to the Semi-Final and Grand Final rounds. However, Respondent teams will not receive Appellant submissions prior to submitting their memorials.
3.6. Late submissions will incur a 5% reduction in the overall team mark for each 24-hour period or part thereof they are overdue. This deduction will be applied in each preliminary round and in the finals. In the event of a dispute, the official time is taken to be the time that the submissions are received according to the Tournament Convenors' email records.
3.7. Each team is responsible for bringing one copy of their submissions for each presiding judge in each round of the competition. These must be identical to the submissions submitted via email. Each copy must be held together by a staple on the top left-hand corner of the page.
3.8. The Appellant submissions and the Respondent submissions shall each be no more than three (3) A4 pages long. Submissions must be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font, with page margins of 2cm. No list of authorities is required, but full citations must be provided.
3.9. Written submissions must be clearly labelled with the team’s number (as assigned by the Tournament Convenor) but must not contain the names of the Law School that the team is representing.
3.10. As far as possible (including in oral argument) all participants will avoid letting judges know which Law Schools the teams appearing before them are from. However, a breach of this rule shall not be grounds for appeal or complaint.
3.11. No requests for clarification regarding the problem question will be accepted after Sunday, 1 September 2019. Requests for clarification must be emailed to the Convenors. Whilst an effort will be made to secure answers to clarification questions, the author of the problem question reserves the right to select which clarification questions she will answer.
3.12. Except where otherwise noted, the law applicable to the problem question is that in force on the day of the moot, in the jurisdiction where the moot is held.
4. Oral submissions
4.1. There will be four (4) preliminary rounds. Each team will moot the Respondent side twice and the Appellant side twice.
4.2. In each moot, each team will be presented by a Senior Counsel and a Junior Counsel. Speakers shall present in the following order:
(i) Senior Counsel for the Appellant;
(ii) Junior Counsel for the Appellant;
(iii) Senior Counsel for the Respondent;
(iv) Junior Counsel for the Respondent;
(v) Rebuttal (to be delivered by Senior or Junior Counsel for the Appellant);
(vi) Surrebuttal (to be delivered by Senior or Junior Counsel for the Respondent).
The Respondent may choose to not exercise its right to surrebuttal.
4.3. Teams will have a total of 40 minutes in which to present their oral submissions (including rebuttal and surrebuttal). This time is to be divided equitably between the two speakers. Senior Counsel should, when giving appearances, state how long each speaker will speak for and how much time, if any, is reserved for rebuttal/surrebuttal. Judges may, at their discretion, grant an extension of time of up to two (2) minutes per speaker, provided that the speaker requests an extension of time from the bench in an appropriate manner.
4.4. Each team member is required to moot at least twice in the preliminary rounds, unless she is the designated solicitor. The team member who is not speaking in a given round is permitted to sit at the bar table with her fellow team members and act as ‘solicitor’, providing assistance to her fellow team members as required. Team members are not permitted to communicate verbally with each other while a moot is in progress, but may write notes for each other. Coaches may not communicate in any way with team members while a moot is in progress under any circumstances.
4.5. During the course of the moot, teams must not use any device to access the internet or to otherwise communicate with persons outside the moot court. Mobile telephones and other electronic devices may be used only for the purpose of keeping time, but may be excluded at the discretion of the presiding judge.
4.6. Teams are not bound by their written submissions in oral rounds and may deviate from their written submissions, with the permission of their judge. Judges may refuse permission at their discretion.
5. Judging
5.1. The written submissions will be judged in accordance with the scoresheet affixed to these rules as ‘Annexure A’. (See below)
5.2. The oral submissions will be judged in accordance with the scoresheet affixed to these rules as ‘Annexure B’. (See below)
5.3. For each moot, each team will receive an overall mark out of 200. This will consist of up to 20 marks for the written submissions and up to 180 marks for the oral submissions (calculated by adding the two individual speakers’ scores). The marks will then be averaged across to accommodate for the Teams that have been allocated as bye.
5.4. Teams will receive two points for a win and one point for a loss. In the event of both teams receiving the same overall mark in a given round, each team will receive 1.5 points. The four teams with the highest number of points after the preliminary rounds will advance to the semi-finals. In the event of multiple teams having the same numbers of points, the respective rankings of those teams will be determined by comparing their overall marks.
5.5. In the semi-finals, the first-ranked team (based on scores from preliminary rounds) will moot against the fourth-ranked team, and the second-ranked team will moot against the third-ranked team. The two winning teams will progress to the grand finals.
5.6. Judges are encouraged to give feedback to teams at the conclusion of each round. However, a failure to give reasons will not constitute grounds for appeal.
5.7. In the preliminary rounds, judges are asked not to reveal the winner of the round, or individual speaker scores.
5.8. In the Semi-Final round, judges will announce the winner of the moot immediately upon the conclusion of the round.
5.9. The winner of the Grand Final will be announced at the gala dinner.
6. Best speaker award – preliminary rounds
6.1. There will be an award for the best speaker in the preliminary rounds.
6.2. Candidates for best speaker must have spoken twice in the preliminary rounds.
6.3. Only performances in the preliminary rounds will be considered.
6.4. For each moot, every competitor will be ranked individually as either first, second, third or fourth. This ranking will be given according to the competitor’s score relative to the other competitors in that moot. If there is a tie for first, both (or all) tying speakers will receive a ranking of first.
6.5. Of the competitors achieving all first (1st) rankings, the mooter with the highest average score for their best two (2) moots will be declared the best speaker in the preliminary rounds.
6.6. If no competitor achieves all first (1st) rankings, the competitors with the most first rankings will be considered.
6.7. In the event of an unsolvable tie, competitors will share the prize.
6.8. At the discretion of the Tournament Convenors, an award of runner-up may be given to any mooters in close contention for the award of best speaker in the preliminary rounds.
7. Best speaker award – grand final
7.1. There will be an award for the best speaker in the Grand Final.
7.2. The speaker who receives the highest number of individual speaker points in the grand final will be declared the best speaker in the grand final.
7.3. In the event of a tie, the competitor with the highest average score for their two (2) best moots in the preliminary rounds will be declared the best speaker in the Grand Final.
8. Release of marks
8.1. No win / loss result, or individual speaker scores, will be released at the conclusion of each preliminary round. Competitors must not ask a judge to provide them with the win / loss result, individual speaker scores or overall team mark.
8.2. At the end of the Tournament, the win / loss result and overall team marks from each preliminary round moot will be made available on this website.
8.3. At the conclusion of the tournament, competitors may request their individual speaker scores by emailing womensmoot@suls.org.au within one week. Individual speaker scores will otherwise be treated confidentially.
9. Disputes and Appeals
9.1. Any dispute in relation to a breach or alleged breach of these rules will be finally and conclusively resolved by the Tournament Convenors, except in the case of a complaint raised against the Tournament Convenor, which will be resolved by the Sydney University Law Society Competition Directors.
9.2. Any complaint that a team or judge has breached one of the above rules should be emailed to womensmoot@suls.org.au with as many details as possible provided about the incident. If a complaint is raised about the conduct of the Tournament Convenors, it should be emailed to the SULS Competition Directors at competitions@suls.org.au.
9.3. Any complaint regarding the conduct of a team, organiser, or judge in relation to the Tournament which does not constitute a breach of one of the above rules should be emailed to womensmoot@suls.org.au. However, the Convenor reserves the right to take no action in relation to any such complaints.
9.4. There will be absolutely no appeals from the decisions of judges except in the case of an obvious typographical or transcription error in the scoresheet. In particular, there will be no appeals on grounds of merit, unreasonable decisions, or lack of reasons given for decisions.
1.1. "Woman" means a person who self-identifies as female or non-binary. This includes trans, gender-queer, intersex, androgynous, bi-gender or gender-fluid people who may not have been assigned as female at birth but now identifies as such.
Please note: self-identification will not be questioned.
2. Teams
2.1. Each team participating in the National Intervarsity Women’s Mooting Tournament (‘the Tournament’) will be composed of three (3) mooters. Teams may either elect to have three speaking members who rotate roles, or designate one member as the 'team solicitor'.
2.2. The Tournament organisers may, at their absolute discretion, cap the number of teams that are eligible to participate.
2.3. All team members must read the Competition Rules carefully and are expected to be familiar with their contents.
2.4. Unless otherwise stated in these rules, the penalties for breach of these rules will be at the discretion of the Tournament Convenors. Please see paragraph 9 for the appeals process.
2.5. No team shall have more than one (1) mooter who has participated in an international mooting competition. An international mooting competition includes, but is not limited to, the following: the Philip C Jessup International Law Moot; the Willem C Vis International Arbitration Moot; the ELSA Moot Court Competition on WTO Law; the Jean-Pictet Competition; and the World Human Rights Moot Court Competition. An international mooting competition includes the national rounds of any international mooting competition (e.g. Jessup Australian rounds.)
2.6. Teams may elect to have a coach. Coaches may provide general feedback and advice but are not to devise written or oral arguments for the team, or otherwise assist with researching the problem question issues. Oral and written arguments are to be devised solely by team members. Coaches are welcome to attend the Tournament, but may not view moots other than those in which their team is competing.
2.7. Each University may enter 1-2 teams. The Tournament organisers may, at their absolute discretion, permit a university to enter more than two teams if special circumstances are shown. Please email womensmoot@suls.org.au if your university is interested in sending more than two teams.
2.8. No team may receive material help from any person outside the team, including their coach, in the preparation of their written submissions. Some examples of 'material help' are assistance with substantive research, writing or drafting submissions, and discussion of the legal principles underlying the problem question.
2.9. All competitors should be current students. Competitors may also have graduated at the end of the semester immediately prior to the competition, subject to the qualification that they have not been admitted into practice.
3. Written submissions
3.1. Written submissions are electronically filed by attaching the document to an email to the Tournament Convenors, Julia Tran and Kavya Nagpal, at womensmoot@suls.org.au. Upon submission, teams should receive an acknowledgement of receipt shortly. Teams should re-send their submissions if they do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt within one hour of filing.
3.2. Written submissions for the Appellant are to be electronically filed by 5:00 pm (AEST) on Friday, 13 September 2019.
3.3. The Tournament Convenors will email the relevant teams' Appellant submissions to each of the teams that will be mooting against that team as Respondent by 5:00 pm the next day.
3.4. Each team must electronically file two (2) written submissions for the Respondent, one responding to each of the Appellant' submissions that they have received, by 5:00 pm (AEST) on Thursday, 26 September 2019.
3.5. Written submissions may be updated prior to the Semi-Final and Grand Final rounds. However, Respondent teams will not receive Appellant submissions prior to submitting their memorials.
3.6. Late submissions will incur a 5% reduction in the overall team mark for each 24-hour period or part thereof they are overdue. This deduction will be applied in each preliminary round and in the finals. In the event of a dispute, the official time is taken to be the time that the submissions are received according to the Tournament Convenors' email records.
3.7. Each team is responsible for bringing one copy of their submissions for each presiding judge in each round of the competition. These must be identical to the submissions submitted via email. Each copy must be held together by a staple on the top left-hand corner of the page.
3.8. The Appellant submissions and the Respondent submissions shall each be no more than three (3) A4 pages long. Submissions must be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font, with page margins of 2cm. No list of authorities is required, but full citations must be provided.
3.9. Written submissions must be clearly labelled with the team’s number (as assigned by the Tournament Convenor) but must not contain the names of the Law School that the team is representing.
3.10. As far as possible (including in oral argument) all participants will avoid letting judges know which Law Schools the teams appearing before them are from. However, a breach of this rule shall not be grounds for appeal or complaint.
3.11. No requests for clarification regarding the problem question will be accepted after Sunday, 1 September 2019. Requests for clarification must be emailed to the Convenors. Whilst an effort will be made to secure answers to clarification questions, the author of the problem question reserves the right to select which clarification questions she will answer.
3.12. Except where otherwise noted, the law applicable to the problem question is that in force on the day of the moot, in the jurisdiction where the moot is held.
4. Oral submissions
4.1. There will be four (4) preliminary rounds. Each team will moot the Respondent side twice and the Appellant side twice.
4.2. In each moot, each team will be presented by a Senior Counsel and a Junior Counsel. Speakers shall present in the following order:
(i) Senior Counsel for the Appellant;
(ii) Junior Counsel for the Appellant;
(iii) Senior Counsel for the Respondent;
(iv) Junior Counsel for the Respondent;
(v) Rebuttal (to be delivered by Senior or Junior Counsel for the Appellant);
(vi) Surrebuttal (to be delivered by Senior or Junior Counsel for the Respondent).
The Respondent may choose to not exercise its right to surrebuttal.
4.3. Teams will have a total of 40 minutes in which to present their oral submissions (including rebuttal and surrebuttal). This time is to be divided equitably between the two speakers. Senior Counsel should, when giving appearances, state how long each speaker will speak for and how much time, if any, is reserved for rebuttal/surrebuttal. Judges may, at their discretion, grant an extension of time of up to two (2) minutes per speaker, provided that the speaker requests an extension of time from the bench in an appropriate manner.
4.4. Each team member is required to moot at least twice in the preliminary rounds, unless she is the designated solicitor. The team member who is not speaking in a given round is permitted to sit at the bar table with her fellow team members and act as ‘solicitor’, providing assistance to her fellow team members as required. Team members are not permitted to communicate verbally with each other while a moot is in progress, but may write notes for each other. Coaches may not communicate in any way with team members while a moot is in progress under any circumstances.
4.5. During the course of the moot, teams must not use any device to access the internet or to otherwise communicate with persons outside the moot court. Mobile telephones and other electronic devices may be used only for the purpose of keeping time, but may be excluded at the discretion of the presiding judge.
4.6. Teams are not bound by their written submissions in oral rounds and may deviate from their written submissions, with the permission of their judge. Judges may refuse permission at their discretion.
5. Judging
5.1. The written submissions will be judged in accordance with the scoresheet affixed to these rules as ‘Annexure A’. (See below)
5.2. The oral submissions will be judged in accordance with the scoresheet affixed to these rules as ‘Annexure B’. (See below)
5.3. For each moot, each team will receive an overall mark out of 200. This will consist of up to 20 marks for the written submissions and up to 180 marks for the oral submissions (calculated by adding the two individual speakers’ scores). The marks will then be averaged across to accommodate for the Teams that have been allocated as bye.
5.4. Teams will receive two points for a win and one point for a loss. In the event of both teams receiving the same overall mark in a given round, each team will receive 1.5 points. The four teams with the highest number of points after the preliminary rounds will advance to the semi-finals. In the event of multiple teams having the same numbers of points, the respective rankings of those teams will be determined by comparing their overall marks.
5.5. In the semi-finals, the first-ranked team (based on scores from preliminary rounds) will moot against the fourth-ranked team, and the second-ranked team will moot against the third-ranked team. The two winning teams will progress to the grand finals.
5.6. Judges are encouraged to give feedback to teams at the conclusion of each round. However, a failure to give reasons will not constitute grounds for appeal.
5.7. In the preliminary rounds, judges are asked not to reveal the winner of the round, or individual speaker scores.
5.8. In the Semi-Final round, judges will announce the winner of the moot immediately upon the conclusion of the round.
5.9. The winner of the Grand Final will be announced at the gala dinner.
6. Best speaker award – preliminary rounds
6.1. There will be an award for the best speaker in the preliminary rounds.
6.2. Candidates for best speaker must have spoken twice in the preliminary rounds.
6.3. Only performances in the preliminary rounds will be considered.
6.4. For each moot, every competitor will be ranked individually as either first, second, third or fourth. This ranking will be given according to the competitor’s score relative to the other competitors in that moot. If there is a tie for first, both (or all) tying speakers will receive a ranking of first.
6.5. Of the competitors achieving all first (1st) rankings, the mooter with the highest average score for their best two (2) moots will be declared the best speaker in the preliminary rounds.
6.6. If no competitor achieves all first (1st) rankings, the competitors with the most first rankings will be considered.
6.7. In the event of an unsolvable tie, competitors will share the prize.
6.8. At the discretion of the Tournament Convenors, an award of runner-up may be given to any mooters in close contention for the award of best speaker in the preliminary rounds.
7. Best speaker award – grand final
7.1. There will be an award for the best speaker in the Grand Final.
7.2. The speaker who receives the highest number of individual speaker points in the grand final will be declared the best speaker in the grand final.
7.3. In the event of a tie, the competitor with the highest average score for their two (2) best moots in the preliminary rounds will be declared the best speaker in the Grand Final.
8. Release of marks
8.1. No win / loss result, or individual speaker scores, will be released at the conclusion of each preliminary round. Competitors must not ask a judge to provide them with the win / loss result, individual speaker scores or overall team mark.
8.2. At the end of the Tournament, the win / loss result and overall team marks from each preliminary round moot will be made available on this website.
8.3. At the conclusion of the tournament, competitors may request their individual speaker scores by emailing womensmoot@suls.org.au within one week. Individual speaker scores will otherwise be treated confidentially.
9. Disputes and Appeals
9.1. Any dispute in relation to a breach or alleged breach of these rules will be finally and conclusively resolved by the Tournament Convenors, except in the case of a complaint raised against the Tournament Convenor, which will be resolved by the Sydney University Law Society Competition Directors.
9.2. Any complaint that a team or judge has breached one of the above rules should be emailed to womensmoot@suls.org.au with as many details as possible provided about the incident. If a complaint is raised about the conduct of the Tournament Convenors, it should be emailed to the SULS Competition Directors at competitions@suls.org.au.
9.3. Any complaint regarding the conduct of a team, organiser, or judge in relation to the Tournament which does not constitute a breach of one of the above rules should be emailed to womensmoot@suls.org.au. However, the Convenor reserves the right to take no action in relation to any such complaints.
9.4. There will be absolutely no appeals from the decisions of judges except in the case of an obvious typographical or transcription error in the scoresheet. In particular, there will be no appeals on grounds of merit, unreasonable decisions, or lack of reasons given for decisions.
| Annexures_a_and_b.doc |
