•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 5-minute read


 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

Hey everyone! We're the Moot Court Society of NLSIU and we're organizing the XII National Law School - Trilegal International Arbitration Moot, 2019 between 17th and 19th May 2019. With the rounds scheduled to commence from tomorrow, we're excited to bring you the live updates from the Moot! A busy day awaits the teams, we'll start posting when the first round commences. Follow this live blog for regular updates!

Preliminary Round 1

Court Room 15

Team 1909C v Team 1915R

Respondent Speaker 1

15.09: The speaker begins his speech confidently by laying down the roadmap of the same. 

15.15: The speaker speaks with a forced but impressive baritone before being questioned by the judge. The judge has asked the speaker questions pertaining to the factual matrix of the case. Though the speaker is handling the questions in a confident manner, the judges are not ready to buy his interpretation of the facts.

15.19: The panel is now questioning the speaker on fundamental questions of law. The speaker has chosen to change his line of argument instead of engaging with the question of the judge

15.23: The speaker wants to move to his next submission; however, the judges continue to grill him on his first submissions. The speaker is still replying to the judges, however there are hints of urgency in his speech.

15.27: The speaker has requested for an additional few minutes and moves on to his next argument.

15.30: The panel continue to grill the speaker on the facts of the case. The speaker has regained his cool, and concludes his speech.

Claimant Speaker 1

15.32: The speaker begins by rebutting and belittling the arguments of the respondents. He also claims that the lack of authorities either domestic or international were proof of the fact that the opposing team did not have a strong case.

15.33: Before the speaker can laydown his roadmap, the arbitrators begin to grill him on fundamentals of copyright and arbitration law. The counsel manages to answer the question. However, he decides to jump right into his arguments and chooses not to lay down the roadmap of his speech.  

15.36: The panellists dismiss the factual arguments made by the counsel. The arbitrators are taking the speaker back to the initial questions, in an effort to highlight the flaws of his arguments.

15.37: The judges request the speaker to the next issue. He complies.

15.40: The judges ask the speaker to clarify certain factual aspects of the case. The counsel does the same.  The judges are now using the interpretation of the counsel on facts, along with the relevant law to show the lack of depth of his argument.

15.41: The confidence of the speaker is waning. He has also requested for some extra time, as the same is running out. The Judges are now asking him to engage with a hypothetical of their choice. The counsel is unable to do the same.

15.43: The speaker has started to wrap up his arguments. A strong start but a weak finish seems to be the theme of this speaker.

Claimant Speaker 2

15.45: The speaker lays down his roadmap with brevity and efficacy. He also manages to explain a few technological and technical terms in laymen terms.

15.48: The arbitrators have begun questioning the counsel. They are not impressed with his implementation of existing legal principles to the facts of the case. The counsel however holds his position.

15.51: The arbitrators continue questioning the counsel. The counsel is conceding on facts, however he is holding his position on the law.  

15.53: The concession on the facts is proving to be a setback for the counsel, as the judges are now using it to their advantage. These concessions are used by the judges to disarm the counsel’s legal standing. They want to change the standard used in the current factual matrix.

15.55: The counsel has found an out. Through the use of authority he has managed to convince the panel to not change the standard of proof in the current case.

15.58: The counsel has moved to his next argument. The panel wants him to clarify a certain position of law for their benefit.  

16.01: The counsel directs the attention of the panel to the fact sheet, in an attempt to clear a point of fact. However, the point is grey enough to be interpreted in multiple ways. The counsel is extremely persuasive in pushing the judges to accept his interpretation.  

16.03:  The counsel is now using a hypothetical of his own to persuade the judges of his argument. The judges seem to accept the same and the speech is wrapped up.

Respondent Speaker 2

16.03: The speaker confidently lays down her road map. She too begins by rebutting the points made by the opposing party. The calculated and measured tone of the speaker is like a calm before a storm.

16.05: The panel has posed a question to the speaker. The researchers of the speaker started giggling as soon as the arbitrator asked the question. They nod vigorously as their teammate replies to the question.   

16.08: The judges are on a monologue to prove the point that the counsel had attempted to mislead the panel on the facts of the case. The answer given by the speaker is technically correct but pedantic in nature. The judges continue grilling her. They are visibly not convinced of her answer. The counsel finally cites some authorities as a Hail Mary. The judges seem to have backed off from questioning her, for now.

16.11: The measured tone of the speaker is showing some signs of haste. However, she completes her submission and moves on to the next one.

16.14: The counsel is making a two-pronged argument. Starting the first one with a legal authority, the speaker expertly lays down the foundation of her argument. The judges are quick to question her on the law. Her reply seems to convince them as they do not question her anymore on the same point.

16.17: The speaker is now arguing the second prong of her argument. The speech is once again measured and eloquent. The judges ask her questions based on fact and she replies to the same again. 

16.18: The counsel has decided to wrap up her arguments. The judges are extremely satisfied with her argument and time management.

Claimant Speaker 1 Rebuttal

16.19: The speaker flags down three rebuttals.

Claimant Speaker 2 Rebuttal

16.20: The speaker clarifies a clause of the contract between the party, which effectively takes away the second submission Respondent speaker 2.

Respondent Speaker 1 Rebuttal

16.21: The speaker has 2 rebuttals. Both the rebuttals are points of fact and are trying to do neutralize the rebuttals of the opposing team.

Respondent Speaker 2 Rebuttal

16.22: The counsel is reiterating his interpretation of the point of fact, so that the meat of his argument is not disabled by the rebuttals made by Claimant Speaker 2.

No comments yet: share your views