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 1 moot problem
In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ladder v Buildit Ltd
Buildit Ltd is a building firm. Much of its work comes from Local Authorities. In 1996, Buildit was commissioned by Orbitshire County Council to build a housing estate consisting of 'affordable housing for first time buyers and young professionals'.
One of the properties on the housing estate, a 3-bedroomed semi-detached townhouse, was bought from its original (and first) owner by Mr Richard Ladder in 2000, for £150,000. In August 2002, Mr Ladder came back from a holiday to find that his house had been seriously affected by subsidence. Internally, there were large cracks in the walls and, in addition, an antique urn owned by Mr Ladder and worth some £20,000 had fallen off a shelf on the wall and broken, along with some other items of lesser value. Investigations by an independent qualified structural surveyor found that the subsidence had occurred because when the foundations built for the house to rest on were inadequate. The structural surveyor also said that this would not have been something a surveyor would have picked up in his report to Mr. Ladder's mortgage provider when the house sale was going through.
As a result of the subsidence, the whole house had to be underpinned and both interior and exterior decoration needed to be replaced (where it had been damaged by the subsidence). This cost £70,000 in total. Furthermore, the market value of the property decreased by £30,000 as a result of the subsidence and the reputation of the building firm. In addition, Mr Ladder's home insurance premiums were increased by 100%. It turned out, following further investigation, that the surveyor employed at the time by Orbitshire County Council had misread Buildit's tender and proposed plans, and vouched for the foundations as safe when they were not.
Ladder sued both Buildit and Orbitshire County Council in negligence. At first instance, Offam J found in favour of both defendants, citing the following grounds:
1) All of the loss suffered by Mr Ladder was purely economic and, since this was alleged to be the result of negligent building by the defendant, there could be no question of a duty of care being owed, as per the House of Lords' decision in Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990].
2) Even if the first proposition was wrong and such a duty could in principle arise, it could not do so in this case because there was insufficient proximity between any of the parties. Mr Ladder, not being the original purchaser, was too far removed.
Mr Ladder appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
1) Not all of the losses claimed were 'purely' economic. A duty of care in respect of the consequential economic losses is not problematic as it is not limited by the same principles of proximity, and
2) In any case, following The Nicholas H [1995] and the application of the tests from Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990], the distinction between physical loss and economic loss in relation to the question of whether or not a duty of care arises is questionable, and
3) Even if Buildit owed no duty of care, Orbitshire County Council should, based on analogy with the statement or 'advice' cases in economic loss (stemming from the authority of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners [1963]), as it was its surveyor who gave negligent advice causing the contract for the housing estate to be awarded to Buildit in the first place.
© Kirsty Horsey 2009
Round 1 Draw for the 2009-2010 Competition
| Home Team |
|
Away Team |
| Sheffield Hallam University |
Vs |
University of Derby |
| University of Cambridge |
Vs |
Bloomsbury College of Law |
| University of Hertfordshire |
Vs |
Queen Mary, University of London |
| University of Gloucestershire |
Vs |
University of Wolverhampton |
| University of Southampton |
Vs |
Swansea University |
| Newcastle Law School |
Vs |
University of Strathclyde |
| Reading University |
Vs |
City University |
| Birkbeck College, University of London |
Vs |
University of Winchester |
| University of Westminster |
Vs |
University of the West of England |
| Salford University |
Vs |
University of Sunderland |
| University of East Anglia |
Vs |
Kings College |
| University of Portsmouth |
Vs |
Buckingham University |
| Middlesex University |
Vs |
Kingston University |
| University of Greenwich |
Vs |
Southampton Solent University |
| Nottingham Trent Law School |
Vs |
University of Leeds |
| Kent University |
Vs |
Brunel University |
| University of Exeter - Cornwall Campus |
Vs |
Bournemouth University |
| University of Lincoln |
Vs |
Keele University |
| Birmingham University |
Vs |
University of Ulster |
| Oxford Brookes |
Vs |
Buckinghamshire New University |
| University of Manchester |
Vs |
University of Warwick |
| University of Oxford |
Vs |
Exeter University |
| University of Nottingham |
Vs |
Northumbria University |
| De Montfort University |
Vs |
LSE |
| University of Leicester |
Vs |
University of Essex |
| Bradford University |
Vs |
Bristol University |
| University of Chester |
Vs |
University of Hull |
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.
