Oxford University Press and BPP Law School have teamed up once again to offer this prestigious national event that is a ‘must enter’ for any student with a passion for mooting.
In addition to the substantial prize money on offer, the winners of the competition each year have the chance to get involved with BPP's exciting pro bono programme, giving them a tour of BPP's Pro Bono Centre and an opportunity to participate in pro bono projects resulting in valuable hands on practical experience.
Registration is now closed for the 2009-2010 competition but please follow the progress of the competition below. For any further information regarding the competition email us at mooting.uk@oup.com.
To see the complete rules for the OUP & BPP National Mooting Competition click here.
Complete schedule for 2009-2010 Competition
| Round |
Date information circulated |
Deadline for return of results |
| 1 |
20 Oct |
4 Dec |
| 2 |
11 Dec |
5 Feb |
| 3 |
12 Feb |
1 Apr (N.B. Thursday before Good Friday |
| 4 |
12 Apr |
4 Jun |
| Final |
TBC |
TBC |
Please note that these dates may be subject to change.
Round 2 moot problem
In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Herne v Bay Electricals Plc
Herne bought a large plasma screen television and surround sound home cinema package from Bay Electricals Plc on a buy-now-pay-later agreement. The initial price of the equipment was £10,000. The buy-now-pay-later credit agreement provided that she would repay the £10,000 and the interest on it by making twenty monthly instalments of £750, beginning six months after the agreement was signed. Herne began making the payments at the required time.
After she had made ten payments, Herne was suddenly made redundant. She sent a letter to Bay Electricals explaining her situation and telling them that she was unsure about when she would be able to resume payments. She asked whether, instead of waiting for this time, they would be prepared to accept £3,500 of her £10,000 redundancy settlement as a final one-off payment for the TV and home cinema system. Bay Electricals, which was suffering in terms of falling profits due to the credit crunch, responded with a letter in which they agreed to accept the £3,500 (together with the money she had already paid) in full satisfaction of her debt. On receipt of this letter, Herne sent a cheque for £3,500 to Bay Electricals, asking for confirmation that her credit account was closed. This was duly sent to her.
Six months later, after a change in policy in their credit department initiated as a response to the credit crunch, Bay Electricals wrote to Herne seeking to recover the £4,000 that they alleged was still outstanding under the credit agreement. Herne, who had still not managed to find another full time job, but had taken a part time job in the local supermarket, said that she did not have to pay, arguing that Bay Electricals was estopped from claiming the money from her.
At trial in the Wayside County Court, Hardly J held that:
1) Herne could not argue that Baybank was estopped from claiming the remainder of the debt because:
a) She had suffered no detriment in reliance on their promise to accept the £3,500 in full settlement of the debt, and
b) Promissory estoppel would, at most, suspend her obligation to pay the balance until Baybank gave reasonable notice that they wished to return to the original terms of the loan agreement. This had been done by writing the letter to Herne.
2) Herne could not rely on Williams v Roffey [1991] because:
a) She had conferred no practical benefit on Bay Electricals by making the £3,500 payment, and
b) The court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Re Selectmove [1994] which stated that the Williams v Roffey could not apply to cases of debt.
Herne's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed but she was given leave to appeal to the House of Lords. She appeals to the House of Lords on the grounds that:
1) The House of Lords could overturn the decision reached in Re Selectmove in relation to the application of the practical benefit principle to debt cases. If this was correct, she had in fact, according to Williams, conferred a benefit on Bay Electricals as the payment of £3,500 that she had made came at a vital time in the credit crunch for them.
2) Even if she was unsuccessful on the first ground, estoppel can apply to her case because:
a) According to WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr Export and Import Co [1972], she is not required to show detrimental reliance on a promise and,
b) As in High Trees, estoppel can be used to extinguish the obligation to pay a sum previously owed. Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] supports the contention that a party may be permanently estopped from going back on their promise.
- ends –
© Dr Kirsty Horsey 2009
Round 2 Draw for the 2009-2010 Competition
| Home Team |
|
Away Team |
| Sheffield Hallam University |
Vs |
University of Cambridge |
| University of Gloucestershire |
Vs |
University of Hertfordshire |
| Swansea University |
Vs |
University of Strathclyde |
| Reading University |
Vs |
Birkbeck College, University of London |
| King's College, University of London |
Vs |
University of Westminster |
| University of Sunderland |
Vs |
Buckingham University |
| Kingston University |
Vs |
University of Greenwich |
| Nottingham Trent Law School |
Vs |
Kent University |
| University of Exeter - Cornwall Campus |
Vs |
University of Lincoln |
| Oxford Brookes |
Vs |
Birmingham University |
| University of Manchester |
Vs |
University of Oxford |
| University of Nottingham |
Vs |
De Montfort University |
| University of Essex |
Vs |
Bristol University |
| Queen Mary, University of London |
Vs |
University of Chester |
Please note that this draw may be subject to change.
Essential reading for mooters
Legal Skills, Second edition by Emily Finch & Stefan Fafinski encompasses all the academic and practical skills vital to a law degree in one manageable volume and includes a section on mooting.
It is accompanied by an Online Resource Centre that contains videos showing good and bad 'real life' moots in action to bring the subject to life for students.
[...more]
How to Moot: A Student Guide to Mooting by John Snape and Gary Watt provides answers to 101 questions students new to mooting will ask, and covers the major problems likely to be encountered.
"The novice mooter can become very knowledgeable about this game we call a moot by reading the book from cover to cover. The more experienced mooter (or tutor) can use the book as a valuable reference guide..." The Law Teacher
[..more]
For further information email mooting.uk@oup.com.
