UNIT 1

INTRODUCTION TO MOOTING

INTRODUCTION
This unit is aimed at everyone who is involved in mooting whether as a mooter,
organizer, coach or judge. It provides a complete guide to every aspect of
mooting from considering the mooting problem through to researching the
issues, practicing your advocacy and participating in the moot itself.
Additionally, there is a unit dealing with organizing a moot, which includes
advice on setting moot problems, and judging a moot.
1. WHAT IS MOOTING?
A moot is an argument on points of law that aims to simulate an appeal
court hearing before a judge or panel of judges. The participants, known
as ‘mooters’, argue the legal merits of appealing a fictitious case that
has been decided in a lower court.

A moot is not concerned with an argument over the facts of the case as these
are deemed to have been settled at the original hearing. For this reason,
witnesses or juries do not feature in moots and this distinguishes a moot from a
mock trial. As a result, the style of advocacy is different in a moot to that seen in
a trial and is much less impassioned. Both can be contrasted with the trials of
yesteryear where the conduct and language used was rather different to even
the most flamboyant language used in jury trials of today. For example, during
Sir Walter Raleigh’s treason trial in 1603, Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney General,
addressed the defendant, who was about to speak in his own defence:

Thou art a scurvy fellow; thy name is hateful to all the realm of England for thy
pride. I will now make it appear to the world that there never existed on the face
of the earth a viler viper than thou art . . . Thou art a monster; thou hast an
English face and a Spanish heart. Thou viper! For I thou thee, thou traytor.

The style of advocacy a mooter should be aiming for is that seen in an appellate
court such as the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, where the vast majority of
moots are notionally set. Anyone unfamiliar with this style of advocacy would do
well to observe a case being argued.

Mooting is also different to debating, not least because a debate can be on any
subject matter whereas a moot is limited to legal issues. Both, of course, involve
public speaking, where the participants make and respond to points made by
their opponent. This, however, is where the similarity ends.
2. THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ROLES
A moot typically has the following participants.

2.1. Mooters
There are four mooters in a moot: two for the appellant and two for the
respondent. They are referred to as leading counsel and junior counsel. These
titles are not (insofar as the participants are concerned) intended to indicate
seniority – they are just titles given for the purpose of the moot. Each of the
mooters has a different role:

Appellant

Leading counsel:

· Opens the moot and introduces all participants to the judges

· Opens the appellant’s case and addresses the first ground of appeal

· In some moots exercise the appellant’s right to reply

Junior counsel:

· Follows leading counsel and addresses the second ground of appeal

· Concludes the appellant’s case by inviting the court to allow the appeal

Respondent

Leading counsel:

· Opens the respondent’s case and addresses the first ground of appeal.
This concludes responding to submissions made by the appellant’s leading
counsel

Junior Counsel:

· Follows leading counsel and addresses the second ground of appeal. This
includes responding to submissions made by the appellant’s junior counsel

· Concludes the respondent’s case by inviting the court to dismiss the

appeal
2.2. Judge(s)
The judge is in overall charge of the moot. At the end of the moot, the judge will
usually deliver a short judgment on the law before announcing the winner of the
moot. Winning the legal arguments should have no bearing on the team that
wins the moot. Some moots have a panel of judges, especially for the final
rounds.

2.3. Clerk
The clerk sits with the judge and assists him with the bundles and papers. The
clerk also calls on the case and instructs the court to stand when the judge
enters and is ready to retire/leave the court

2.4. Timekeeper
The timekeeper keeps the time. The rules of the moot will state how long each
mooter has to present their arguments and whether or not the clock stops for
judicial interventions.

3. THE MOOT ROOM

Moot rooms vary in size and facilities, ranging from a classroom to a purpose-
built moot room. Sometimes a moot will take place in a real courtroom. In all
cases, the layout of the room will be similar. The judge’s bench is often on a
platform so that it is elevated from the remainder of the court.

4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The grounds of appeal are the most important parts of the moot as these
determine the basis of your arguments. All moot problems will set out the
grounds of the appeal and it is important that these are adhered to – you must
not deviate from them. A typical moot will have two or more grounds of appeal,
which are divided between the two mooters in each team. You will be told which
side you will be representing, usually at the same time as the moot problem is
circulated.

5. WHAT MAKES A GOOD MOOTER?

A good mooter is an effective advocate – someone who has thoroughly prepared
and knows his or her material inside out. Mooting often involves complex legal
issues with no single or straightforward answer. A good mooter is someone who
is able to make their submissions in a logical and easy-to-follow manner while
remaining a pleasure to listen to. Good mooters exude confidence and are well
organized. Overall, good mooters are able to make their submissions in a
persuasive manner and make effective use of the limited time available to them.

6. THE ORAL ELEMENT OF THE MOOT

The oral part of the moot is what most people associate with the concept of
mooting. Therefore, it is important to be well prepared and confident, not only
about what you will be arguing, but also about Court etiquette.

6.1. Court Etiquette

The moot is a formal appearance, which is intended to replicate a courtroom
experience.

(a) Dress

Counsel should dress formally for appearances in a courtroom. For a moot,

students generally tend to wear suits ‘ though this does not mean that you
should buy something special for the moot!

(b) Punctuality

Arriving to your moot early is important to give you the opportunity to settle any
nerves and allow for any last minute alterations before the moot commences. It
is unprofessional to be late for a moot in the same way that it is for a real trial.
You don–t want to upset an impatient judge before the moot even begins!

(c) Modes of Address

The mode of address used will depend upon the jurisdiction of the Court in
which the problem is to be argued. Moot courts being appeals, judges should be
referred to as “My Lord” is male and “My Lady” if female.

Counsel in the moot should be addressed or referred to as “My learned

counsel, learned colleague, or ” learned friend or learned brother”.

(d) Citations

Cases should be cited in full, unless the Court invites you to dispense with
citations or to use abbreviated citations. If you will be referring to a case a
number of times throughout your submissions, it may be helpful to ask the Court
if you can refer to that case by an abbreviated name, following its complete
citation the first time it is mentioned.

(e) The Bar Table

The plaintiff/appellant should sit at the bar table on the judge–s left. The
defendant/respondent will be seated on the judge–s right.

(f) Correct forms of speech

In a moot situation you are not putting forward your own beliefs or opinions on
the case at hand. Rather, you should be submitting to the court the
interpretation of the law and its application to the facts of your case, based on
precedent. Counsel should never use phrases such as “think–, “believe–, or
“suggest– when presenting their argument. Examples of the correct way of
presenting arguments are “Counsel for the applicant will submit–, “It is our
submission– or even just “I submit–. Also, when you refer to a judge, always
remember to say ”Justice Kirby, not Kirby ”Jay(for example). The latter will
almost certainly elicit a raise eyebrow from the bench!

(g) Good manners

During the moot, when your opponents present their argument, you should sit
and listen in respectful silence. You should also pay attention to them while they
are speaking, to ensure you can comment to the bench on the points that they
raise. You should not make any loud noise or comments while your opposition is
speaking, including ruffling through papers and talking to your partner. You
should also refrain from using any suggestive gestures, such as rolling your eyes
or screwing up your face, in response to the things being said by your
opposition.

6.2. Presentation of The Moot

1. Formal introduction

At the beginning of the moot, the Judge will enter the Court, and both teams
should rise. When the judge sits down, counsel and others in the Courtroom may
also do so. The name of the case will then be read. Following this the judge will
ask for appearances from counsel.

2. Appearances

Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant will rise first, introducing him- or
herself, and then their Junior Counsel. Counsel for the defendant/respondent will
then give their appearances.

Example:

Judge: Can I please have appearances? Senior Counsel for the Appellant:
(stands) If it please the Court, my name is Smith, and I appear with my learned
colleague, Mr Brown, for the appellant, Backyard Pty Ltd, in this matter
(resumes seat).
The Judge will respond in some form.

Senior Counsel for the Respondent: (stands) Your Honor, my name is Andrew
White, and I appear with my learned colleague Ms. Paula Green, for the
respondent, Clothesline Inc.

Following this, the Bench will then indicate to Senior Counsel for the Appellant to
begin their oral submissions.

3. Stages of the moot

(a) The plaintiff/appellant will speak first, with Senior Counsel followed by Junior
Counsel.

(b) The defendant/respondent then presents their argument, again with Senior
Counsel followed by Junior Counsel.

(c) The plaintiff/applicant may or may not have a right of reply.

7. STRUCTURING THE CASE
One of the most important parts of your oral argument is actually the structure,
including the internal structure of your arguments and the external structure of
your speech. A standard speech can be neatly divided into three parts:
Introduction, Arguments and Conclusion.

7.1. Introduction
The purpose of your opening is to set the agenda for your speech. Furthermore,
if you–re the Senior Counsel for either side, you will also need to use your
opening to highlight briefly what your Junior Counsel will be addressing. Let the
Court know what the essential questions and controversies are in the moot, and
then tell them how you will address and argue those issues.

Some Senior Counsel for the Applicant/Claimant ask the Bench if they would like
a summary of the facts. This is a matter of personal choice. If you do not offer a
summary of the facts and the Bench would like to hear one, they will normally
ask. However, as a matter of standard practice, the alternative, simply including
a summary of the facts in your speech without making it dependent upon what
the Bench wants is probably unwise, for the very simple reason that even brief
summaries will consume valuable amounts of your time that could otherwise be
directed at furthering your arguments.

Fundamentally, your introduction should be brief and to the point, setting the
scene for your own arguments, and, if you are Senior Counsel, for your team–s
arguments.
7.2. Arguments
The main body of your argument should reflect the summary given during your
opening.

Your arguments should focus upon the contentious issues in the area that you
are addressing. You are trying to address to the Bench–s satisfaction the
questions that they are most interested in ‘ which will almost always be the
difficult areas of the law ‘ and to structure this in such a way so that it is clear to
the Bench.

There are many ways to approach the basic structure of your arguments, but
the most obvious one is to:

(a) Determine the particular arguments that you will be trying to make under
your area of law.

(b) Breakdown each of these arguments into the constituent steps that you need
to achieve in order to prove this argument.
7.3. Closing
During your conclusion, you should sum up what you have said, reinforcing the
major points that you have submitted to the court. You should be aiming to
highlight the essential issues that are raised by the case and the way that you
think, they should be resolved. The closing statement should be strong and
concise; it should not attempt to restate any argument in detail. If you are,
submitting alternative arguments to the Court then remind the Court that they
could side with any one of these alternatives. Essentially, your task is to sum up
the reasons why the Court should accept your submissions and find in favour of
your client.

Generally, Senior Counsel will finish by indicating that their Junior Counsel will
now continue their side–s case. Junior Counsel–s conclusion may also, like Senior
Counsel–s introduction, summarise briefly the arguments that have been made
by both speakers.
8. PRINCIPLES OF ADVOCACY
While there is no doubt that without the preparation, structure and
professionalism described in the previous sections are without a doubt the
fundamentals upon which any moot will be based, it is the advocacy itself that is
most often conjured up in people–s minds when they think of mooting. This last
section will endeavor to describe some of the basic principles of advocacy, and
to highlight the important points to concentrate on when mooting
8.1. The Basics
The three most basic elements of your presentation will be your voice, your eye
contact and your body language.

Eye Contact

In every moot, you should be endeavoring to make as much eye contact with
the members of the Bench as is possible. For this reason, it is a good idea to be
familiar with your speech and arguments, so that you don–t need to rely upon
script. Eye contact is one of the things that almost every judge will take note of.

Some people find it very difficult when they start mooting to maintain eye
contact, even though they know their material well. If you find that this is a
problem, you might like to try speaking without a script so as to convince
yourself that you–re able to do this. Other speakers do not need to rely upon
their written notes, but have a tendency to stare at the wall or above the judge–
s head. If you find this is a problem for you it will simply be a matter of
concentrating on keeping your eyes on the Bench itself.

It is also a good idea to know both your introduction and your conclusion from
memory. This way, you are able to start strong and maintain constant eye
contact for a minute or more, and conclude strongly without having to refer to
your notes.

Voice

Voice can often be one of the most difficult parts of advocacy to get right. You–
re aiming for two things: first, to maintain a confident voice and not disclose
your nervousness or discomfort; second, to modulate your voice so as to
emphasise important points and provide some variety in your speech.

Body Language

Body language can also be difficult to perfect, particularly since it tends to

involve subconscious actions. This is often simply a matter of hearing from
judges as to whether or not there is anything you do that is particularly
distracting.

9. QUESTIONING FROM JUDGES -ADVANCED ADVOCACY

Where two teams are equally well-prepared and have speakers of generally the
same quality, the moot will most often come down to which team is best able to
answer questions. In fact, even a team with weak preparation but capable of
answering questions effectively and confidently will often perform well against a
team with strong preparation. Almost certainly, answering questions is the crux
of mooting.
There are three basic ideas to keep in mind: flexibility, simplicity and answering
directly.

9.1. Flexibility
When a judge asks you a question, they almost certainly be moving you away
from the precise structure by which you planned to deliver your speech. It is
vitally important to be flexible about your speech and go to where the judge
wishes to go. Even if you plan to deal with the issue the judge is raising at a
later point in your speech, you should still answer the question as briefly as
possible rather than indicating that you will do so later. The ability to be flexible
is one of the most obvious points that a judge will look for. At the same time,
remember that you have determined the particular points that you need to
deliver, and so, while acceding to the judge–s wishes, also endeavor to keep the
moot on track and deliver the submissions you planned to make.

9.2. Simplicity
One of the easiest ways to keep a moot moving smoothly is to make everything
simple for the judge to understand. Remember that while an argument or a
submission may make perfect sense to you, this will not always be the case
from the judge–s point of view. Therefore, be mindful of the judge–s concerns
and attempt to address them so as to make clear what the issues are and why
the judge should find in your favour. In and of itself simplicity is a good idea
because judges tend to respond favorably to this. However on top of this,
keeping explanations simple helps a mooter to keep control of his or her speech,
because they will not get bogged down in the same questions or line of thought
repeatedly.

9.3. Answering Directly

This is one of the most difficult skills to answer. All mooters have at one stage or
another given in to the temptation to give a rambling answer that does not
clearly explain the issues or analysis. When a judge asks you a question, there is
no reason not to take a very brief pause to straighten out your thoughts, as
opposed to leaping straight into an answer that may or may not make sense. In
particular, when a judge asks you a “yes– or “no– question ‘ such as ”does the
parole evidence rule apply in this case?‘ give a “yes– or “no– answer
immediately and then explain further. At least this makes clear to the judge the
direction in which you are heading, and helps to convey simplicity.

9.4. Responding to the opposition

If you are the respondent or the claimant exercising your right of reply,
remember to respond to the arguments that have been made by your
opposition. You are not there to merely make arguments that merely go towards
your own theoretical case, but rather to, if you are the respondent, disprove the
claims made by the claimant, and if you are the claimant giving a reply,
disprove the respondent–s arguments against your own. Judges generally prefer
you to concentrate on addressing the other party–s arguments rather than
working straight from your prepared script, and this will demonstrate flexibility.

UNIT 2

THE SKELETON ARGUMENT AND GOOD LEGAL WRITING

INTRODUCTION
Most moots require the participants to prepare skeleton arguments, which are to
be exchanged simultaneously with your opponent in advance of the moot. You
should always check the rules of the moot carefully to see whether skeleton
arguments are required and, if so, what rules apply to them. The rules should
set out whether any word or page limits apply and the date by which you need
to exchange them with your opponent and send them to the judge.

1. WHAT IS A SKELETON ARGUMENT?

Lord Neuberger has described skeleton arguments as the hors d’oeuvre to the
main course of the oral submissions: they come first in time and they are
normally less substantial than what follows, but they should be perfectly good if
taken on their own, and anticipate as follows:

A skeleton argument is a written document prepared in advance of the hearing

which summarises the issues to be addressed and the authorities to be relied
upon. Its purpose ‘is to inform the court of the essential elements of the parties’
submissions and thereby enable it to understand the issues and arguments
arising on the appeal’. This should be done by setting out as concisely as
practicable the arguments upon which a party intends to rely. They should not
only be concise but also should both define and confine the areas of controversy
without including extensive quotations from documents or authorities.

In Tombstone Ltd v Raja, Mummery LJ reminded practitioners that:

Skeleton arguments should not be prepared as verbatim scripts to be read out

in public or as footnoted theses to be read in private. Good skeleton arguments
are tools with practical uses: an agenda for the hearing, a summary of the main
points, propositions and arguments to be developed orally, a useful way of
noting citations and references, a convenient place for making cross-references,
a time-saving means of avoiding unnecessary dictation to the court and
laborious and pointless note-taking by the court.
Skeleton arguments are aids to oral advocacy. They are not written briefs, which
are used in some jurisdictions as substitutes for oral advocacy. An unintended
and unfortunate side effect of the growth in written advocacy (written opening
and closing submissions and ‘speaking notes’, as well as skeleton arguments)
has been that too many practitioners, at increased cost to their clients and
diminishing assistance to the court, burden their opponents and the court with
written briefs. They are anything but brief. The result is that there is no real
saving of legal costs, or of precious hearing, reading and writing time. As has
happened in this case, the opponent’s skeleton argument becomes longer and
the judgment reflecting the lengthy written submissions tends to be longer than
is really necessary to explain to the parties why they have won or lost an
appeal.

Perfecting your skills at drafting skeleton arguments will be of enormous benefit

to you in practice where poorly drafted skeleton arguments will not be tolerated.
In a recent sharp rebuke to practitioners, Jackson LJ complained that:

I have protested previously about the poor quality and excessive length of some
skeleton arguments in this court. On occasion, the Court of Appeal has deprived
successful parties of the costs of preparing their skeletons. So far, unfortunately,
this message has failed to reach the profession. Mild rebukes to counsel and
gentle comments in judgments have no effect whatsoever. Therefore, with
regret, I must speak more bluntly.

2. WHEN TO START DRAFTING YOUR SKELETON

ARGUMENT
Once your research is complete, you should be ready to make a start in
preparing your submissions. A submission is a strand of argument that you will
use to advance your ground of appeal. Your speech will consist of a number of
submissions, each one dealing with a different point of law. There is no such
thing as the correct number of submissions that you should make because each
moot will be different. However, you should bear in mind the limited time that
you will have to make your submissions, some of which will be taken up with
judicial interventions. Your submissions will help formulate your skeleton
argument.

3. COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE OF A SKELETON

ARGUMENT
A skeleton argument consists of four main parts, which we will discuss in turn:
1. Heading

2. Introduction

3. Main submissions

4. Concluding submission.

3.1. The heading

The heading must follow a formal layout and style and is intended to inform the
reader about the nature of the document and parties featuring therein. The
heading identifies the court hearing the appeal, the names of the parties and on
whose behalf the skeleton has been prepared.

(a) The identity of the moot court

The moot court is always identified in the top left-hand corner of the document.
It should be in capital letters and underlined. Where the moot is heard in the
Supreme Court, you should also identify whether this is the Civil Division or the
Criminal Division. The name of the Division also appears in capital letters,
underlined, and appears in brackets.

(b) The parties

The names of the parties appearing in the appeal are set out in full. Immediately
before these names, you should add the word ‘between’ in capital letters,
followed by a colon. The word ‘between’ appears at the left-hand side of the
page. The names appear in capital letters and centered on the page.
Immediately after each party name, you should add the word ‘Appellant’ or
‘Respondent’ as the case may be. These words appear at the right-hand side of
the page, with the letters capitalized. Where there are two or more parties
either appealing or responding to the appeal, these words appear as
‘Appellants’ or ‘Respondents’. There is no need to prefix individual names with
Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr. or the like unless that party’s first name does not appear in
the moot problem. Where one or both parties is a body corporate, then the full
name of the entity should be used, including the suffix ‘Limited’ or ‘PLC’, as the
case may be.

(c) On whose behalf the skeleton is served

Finally, the heading should identify the party on whose behalf the skeleton is to
be served. This part of the heading should appear in capital letters, centered on
the page, and appear between horizontal lines above and below.
3.2. The introduction
Where space permits, both parties should provide a brief introduction to the
appeal. This can be contrasted with a skeleton argument prepared in
professional practice where the introductory section alone often runs to many
pages. The introduction serves as a brief overview and statement of your
client’s position and should be brief and to the point. It should set out how the
issues were decided below with an explanation setting out, if you are the
appellant, why the court below was wrong or, if you are the respondent, why the
court below was correct. The introduction should inform the reader what you
want to achieve, why you want it and why the court should give it to you.

However, because most mooting competitions restrict, often to a single side of

A4, the size of the skeleton that each party may serve, there may be no room
for an introduction. In such a case, you should consider omitting the introduction
and devote the available space to your substantive arguments.

3.3. Main submissions

Immediately after the introduction (or after the heading if you choose to omit
the introduction), you should proceed to your main submissions. These are the
most important part of your skeleton argument.

In short, your submissions should summarise your side’s positive arguments on

each ground of the appeal. Because the skeleton argument is served on behalf
of either the appellant or the respondent, the submissions should represent the
arguments of your team, thereby covering both grounds of the appeal.

Your skeleton will benefit from arranging your submissions underneath short
headings. These will make your submissions stand out and act as a helpful
‘signpost’ for the judge. You will see from the figure below that the first heading
is noted as ‘Should the defence of duress by threats be available where a
defendant is threatened by a close relative, even where he only maintained
minimal relations with that relative?’ Depending on space, you can truncate this
to ‘the close relative point’ or ‘the close relative submissions’.

Most mooting competitions stipulate a simultaneous exchange of skeleton

arguments, which means that when drafting your side’s skeleton you will not
know the substance of your opponent’s arguments. Therefore, you should say
little, if anything, about rebutting your opponent’s arguments when drafting
your skeleton argument. You will have plenty of opportunity to rebut their
arguments during your oral submissions.
Make your submissions persuasive

To get the most out of your submissions, they will need to be persuasive, which
in turn requires skillful drafting. Submissions need to be concise (even where
the rules do not impose a strict page limit) and follow a logical format.

Concise

The word ‘skeleton’ should give this away. You should forget all that you have
been taught about writing essays with a considerable amount of detail, citing as
many relevant cases as you can fit in and footnoting your work at every
opportunity.

Logical

A persuasive argument is one that is logically made and easy to follow. It should
explain what you are attempting to do and the legal basis for doing it. We
discuss in Chapter 6 the PASA method for structuring your individual
submissions from which you will see that there are four separate stages:
Proposition, Argument, Support, and Apply.

· Proposition: What is the point you are looking to make? What do you
intend to demonstrate in your submission?

· Argument: How are you going to explain this?

· Support: Where is the legal support for your submission? You will need to
identify the appropriate legal principle or rule of law that you intend advance in
support of your submission. From there, you can then identify and apply the
authority or authorities that underpin such legal principle or rule of law in
support of the submission.

· Apply: How will you apply the above to the moot problem? You will need
to apply the above principles/authorities to the facts of the moot problem and to
the specific submission within the ground of appeal

Since you will be referring back to your skeleton argument during the course of
your oral submissions, your skeleton argument should be presented in the same
order as you intend to advance your oral arguments during the moot

3.4. The alternative argument submission

When making an alternative argument submission, you must say so expressly in
your skeleton argument. Otherwise, the judge may not immediately appreciate
what might at first glance appear to be two contradictory arguments.
There are two ways of explaining in your skeleton argument that the second
submission is advanced in the alternative to the first. You should start your
second submission with either:

· In the alternative, or

· Alternatively…

3.5. Concluding submission

Your skeleton argument should conclude with a final submission asking the
court to allow (if you are acting for the appellant) or dismiss (if you are acting
for the respondent) the appeal. The names of both mooters in your team should
appear immediately below this concluding submission, followed by the date.

3.6. No footnotes
Although you are encouraged to make good use of footnotes in your written
assessments, you should not use them in your skeleton argument. You should
always bear in mind that a skeleton argument is only a summary (skeleton) of
the issues to be addressed for the purpose of informing the court ‘of the
essential elements of the parties’ submissions and thereby enabling it to
understand the issues and arguments arising on the appeal’. Therefore, if the
point is worth making, it should be in the main body of the skeleton.

If you need to cross-reference something in your skeleton argument (which is

unlikely given the space limits imposed in most moots), then you may use a
footnote but only if bracketing the cross-reference in the main body of the
skeleton is likely to interrupt the flow of the document and thereby reduce its
readability

3.7. Final check

Once you have completed your skeleton argument, you should read it over
carefully to make sure that it reads well and does not contain spelling,
grammatical or punctuation errors, as these signal a lack of attention to detail
and do not inspire confidence. A good command of these important issues can
make a significant difference to the way your team is perceived and, in a closely
fought moot, could even be the deciding factor in determining the winner.

4. THE COMPLETED SKELETON ARGUMENT

Putting all of the above together, you should now be in a position to start
drafting your skeleton argument.

5. EXCHANGING YOUR SKELETON ARGUMENT WITH

YOUR OPPONENT
The rules of the moot will set out the timetable and mechanism for exchanging
skeleton arguments, which are usually exchanged with your opponent
simultaneously. This might appear somewhat artificial if you are tasked with
representing the respondent because it is the respondent’s role to resist and to
respond to the appellant’s submissions. Simultaneous exchange, of course,
means that the respondent will not have the benefit of knowing how the
appellant will advance their appeal.

UNIT 3

THE BUNDLE

INTRODUCTION
A bundle is the file of materials that you will be using in support of your
arguments. Although the question of court bundles may not be the most
enthralling of subjects, you should not overlook their importance.
1. CONTENTS OF THE BUNDLE
Unless the moot rules provide otherwise, a good bundle will consist of the
following, each separated by a labelled ‘tab’ (divider). Numbering each page
sequentially will also be helpful, as it will help speed up accessing the relevant
pages during your submissions.

1.1. Index
The index is placed at the front of the bundle and lists, in the order they appear,
every document contained in the bundle, identifying under which tab and on
what page it can be found. Full citations must be used. The index should be
headed with the name of the parties and should identify on whose behalf the
bundle has been prepared.
Moot problem

You should include a clean, unmarked and unedited copy of the moot problem.

Skeleton argument

Your skeleton argument appears next in the bundle.

Authorities and other material

Immediately after your skeleton argument, you should include a copy of every
authority and any other material that you intend to refer to in your submissions.
The authorities should be arranged in the order that they appear in your
skeleton argument. In the rare case where you have not produced a skeleton
argument, you should arrange the authorities in the order that they will be
argued during your oral submissions.

TEMPLATE OF YOUR MOOT IS ATTACHED. REFER