•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

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

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 6-minute read

The XII NLS-Trilegal International Arbitration Moot, 2019 - il

 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

1939C v 1904R

Respondents

Speaker 1:

15:19 – Due to some co-ordination errors, I must apologize in announcing that the first few minutes of the round haven’t been covered!

Five minutes left. The respondent cites articles to substantiate on his claim of jurisdiction. The arbitrator questions him on the same, while the respondent takes up the question nonchalantly. The respondent answers the series of questions asked without wasting even the slightest moment on processing the question, indicating his well-preparedness.

15:22 – The arbitrator counters the respondent’s claim by citing a case that goes against their case, and the speaker smoothly counters it.

15:25 – Given the paucity of time, the speaker moves towards the next issue, but as he expounds on it, the time gets over, due to which an additional two minutes are provided. The speaker is unable to find a pertinent section asked by the arbitrator and he promises to get back to them. After he submits that his submissions are concluded, the arbitrator interrupts him with another question, which the speaker answers convincingly.

------------------------------------------------------

Petitioners:

Speaker 1:

15:29 – The speaker seems to have impressive control over her voice, using undulations to match with the submissions made. She seeks to simplify her submissions by clarifying the meaning of basic terminologies, but while making the submission, the judge stops her short by mentioning that her submissions are not pertinent to the matter.

15:32 – The speaker makes some minute observations and the arbitrators seem to be impressed to an extent. However, it doesn’t take much for the arbitrator to pose a question. The speaker remains unfazed and answers the question, or attempts to do the same, for the arbitrator doesn’t consider her answer as satisfying his query.

15:35 – The arbitrator’s contentions on the speaker’s claims indicate the different tangent that the speaker seems to be pursuing, and eventually, she is cornered when she doesn’t have an authority to a question posed. She silently moves on to the next issue.

15: 37 – The speaker maintains her composure and elucidates glibly on the next issue, and no further questions are asked. Five minutes left. She moves on to the next issue, maintaining the pace of her lucid and coherent arguments. The arbitrators seem to be satiated by her responses, for they don’t pose any counter-claims or questions.

15:40 – As the speaker makes the next claim, she is suddenly questioned by both arbitrators. The speaker stammers for a while but answers the question. The argument she makes keeps the judges occupied, as she moves on to the next issue.

15:43 – There is a referral to certain unique sources, and the judges, again, don’t question her further. The respondents scribble some observations on their notepads as the time ends, and an additional two minutes are provided by the arbitrators. The arbitrator asks the speaker for a particular provision, which she provides. Without further questions asked, the speaker summarises what her co-counsel would be speaking, and concludes.

---------------------------------------

Petitioners:

Speaker 2:

15:45 – The speaker elucidates confidently, her arguments at an impressive pace, to save time. She makes continuous references to certain sections and keeps the arbitrators busy. She seems to be very expressive as her hands continuously move with each argument, showing the intent and concentration of the speaker.

15:48 – The speaker makes some other references to the case facts, with logical and coherent arguments, she charts her way through the current issue without any questions asked. Several sections and fact-sheet references are cited as the technical arguments made by the speaker seem, at the moment, flawless.

15:50 – Finally, a question is asked! However, it is a clarification, to which the completely-aware speaker submits another section. The judges seem impressed. With the citation of several other sections, she manages to proceed to Issue 4 without any questions asked! The respondents seem to be making some observations.

15:52 – The arbitrator asks the speaker to change the order of her submissions and makes a statement. However, the speaker claims that she couldn’t comprehend the same, to which the arbitrator provides a simpler explanation to her. Understanding the same, she proceeds to the answer it, and mid-way through her submission, she is interrupted with another question.

15:55 – It is at this point that the speaker is finally not able to provide a convincing answer and silently admits her inability initially, but with some further substantiation on the same by the arbitrators, she attempts to answer the same while faltering several times while doing the same. While certain questions are asked, the speaker pleads ignorance on account of non-presence of such information in the facts, and the judges accede to her request to proceed to the next submission.

 

15:58 – Some other interjective questions are posed, which the speaker answers quickly calmly. Given the lack of time, the speaker is asked to proceed towards her next claim. The speaker makes her next submission within the time limit, and has sufficient time to submit the prayer. The arbitrators asked if there are any damages claimed, which is answered by the speaker. The speakers thank the arbitrators for having listened to them.

---------------------------------------------

Respondents:

Speaker 2:

16:01 – The speaker provides a succinct introduction and admits to certain things while making certain submissions on some other issues. Just like the petitioners, the speaker cites cases and explains the ambit of the tests under the section cited. The speaker takes some time in bringing the arbitrators’ attention to certain facts in the current scenario.

16:04 – The first question to the speaker is posed, and the speaker’s smooth flow of arguments hits the rocky side, and thus she falters, but only for a bit, before she comes back with a convincing answer to the question asked. The speaker makes an interesting analogy, but the arbitrator takes the argument to its logical conclusion and asks a question based on the conclusion arrived at. The answer provided isn’t satisfying, and the co-counsel draws her attention to something he has written.

16:07 – The speaker makes an argument which is again questioned, to which she replies that she would answer them in the subsequent submission. She brings the judges’ attention to another fact in the sheet, and supplements the same with two convincing precedents.

16:10 – The arbitrator makes an observation to which the speaker agrees, but at the same time, adds to the same, and concludes her submissions. Given that three minutes are left, the arbitrator asks her a question with a question. The speaker patiently makes a clarification on the submissions she had made, and submits the exact contention that she had.

16:13 – Suddenly, with a barrage of questions asked, the round goes into the last minute. The speaker makes her fourth contention. She cites a section which, she claims, refutes one of the claims made by the petitioners, and justify why the damages shouldn’t be paid. With this, her submissions are concluded.

Rebuttals:

  1. Petitioners:

16:16 – The petitioner seeks to rebut one of the written submissions made by the respondents, but the arbitrators ask her to restrict herself to the scope of the oral arguments. In consonance with the same, she proceeds to rebut the oral claims, and rebuts one argument of the respondents.

  1. Respondents:

16:18 – The respondent gets back to an unanswered question during his oral round, and expounds on the same. Further, he proceeds to rebut the petitioners’ claim by citing a particular section in the fact sheet. The sur-rebuttal is concluded.

No comments yet: share your views

Latest comments