BOOK III:

ORAL PRESENTATION IN
MARITIME MOOT
 BOOK III
ORAL PRESENTATION IN MARITIME MOOT1

1. Introduction: What is moot-court?

A moot is very similar to court litigation or arbitration, however, there are

two major differences. First, in moot the participants are facing time constraints,
so in facing a very short time, a mooter must therefore make an excellent
packaging in delivering arguments to the judges. In real litigation time will
expand as long as it is necessary to produce a good decision. Second, in
litigation/arbitration the judges only assess the facts and the law of the case. The
judges do not care if a lawyer has a very bad appearance yet presents a strong
case. In contrast, a mooter is also assessed by their advocacy skills. In other
words, persuasion and style of a mooter plays a very large role in moot. The
judges do not judge merely from the merits of the case, but assesses according to
how persuasively they present their arguments in the time allotted. Of course,
this cannot be achieved without a strong case.
A moot is an “art of persuasion” and your strong case is your “assets to
persuade with”, a moot is a blend of style and substance. A strong case covers all
aspects of facts, the law and the policy. Young mooters usually concentrate on
either substance or style. Yet, the strongest combination is both. In this chapter,
the discussion will be dealing with style, especially how to make presentation of
arguments before a moot court judge.

2. Performing in moot court

The main task of a mooter is ‘how to present a case in the most perfect
ways with so less time’. This consists of making a good speech, ability to
correspond to judges’ questions and applying etiquette.

Preliminaries
The very best way to perform in moot is to engage a conversation with
the judges. A very common perception to young mooters is that ‘judges are there
to slay you with their questions.’ The right picture is that ‘the judges are seeking
for your kind assistance to assess the case.’ Especially in arbitration moot, form of
negotiation is employed. It is easier to instigate a conversation with the judges
rather in court.
Good result really depends on your entirety of performance. Making
excellent performance at every stage of the round is very important. The most
persuasive team will win.

1
Extracted from the paper on oral argument prepared by Professor Robert C. Beckman
of National University of Singapore.

64
How to make a persuasive speech?
In terms of Style, a mooter is most persuasive if the following factors are
present, namely, Clarity, Confidence and Professional Etiquette. And in terms of
Substance, a mooter is most persuasive if they demonstrate a thorough command
of all aspects of the case (the facts, the law and the policy) and dealing effectively
with questions and concerns of the judges.

Style - Clarity
Three factors to create clarity; intonation, pace, and articulation.
Intonation means how you adjust your volume and giving emphasis on
important points of your case. A judge will likely be confused if your voice is to
low and he/she will likely to fail in following your speech, too loud voices are
likely to offend the judges for they will see you as an over-confident person.
Giving emphasis can be made by making pauses, talk slower on important
words or sentences. Pace means the rhythm and the tempo of your speech, a fast
pace will likely lead the judges into confusion and a slow pace means that you
will bear the risk of not wrapping all important points of your case.

Style – Confidence
Young mooters normally have problems in building their confidence.
Stage-freight is a common example. Generally, confidence will automatically be
obtained if a mooter is best-prepared despite other factors.
Clarity is actually also a factor to build a confidence in moot-court.
However, the main thing to build confidence in yourself is to appear that you
have a strong belief towards your case, although, you actually know that in
certain point of your case you are weak. A noteworthy fact is that most times, the
drafter of the moot problem places a winning point for the claimant on half of the
entire case and a weak point on the other side for the respondent, and vice versa
for the other half. Conversely, if you appear fragile when delivering your
arguments you will likely to loose attention from the judges and as a
consequence they will not be persuaded, although they actually know you have a
very strong case and authorities. Mooters should have a commanding presence,
show to all people in the room that you have awareness at all times, therefore the
judges and the audience can still feel your presence although it is not your turn
to speak.

Style - Professional Etiquette

As a professional lawyer defending its client, you should be professional
in your appearance and manner at all times. You should be polite, respectful and
differential at all times. Young mooters usually only focus on establishing
etiquette to the judges, but your opponent actually also deserves the same
manner from you. Treat your opponents with courtesy and respect at all times.

65
Never smile or laugh when your opponent gets into trouble or making mistakes.
As a mooter, you have the obligation to counter your opponents’ arguments but
never make sarcastic remarks about their arguments although it sounds silly or
unreasonable.

Planning a Strong Argument

1. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your case
Either acting as Claimant or Respondent you must analyze the strengths
and weaknesses of your case and your opponent’s case. You must examine
where your case is strong and where your case is weak – on the facts, the law and
the policy. You should also understand what arguments and points you must get
across if you are going to persuade the judges on the merits of the case.

2. Anticipate questions likely to be raised

Questions raised by the judges can result in two possibilities: the
destruction of your case or a strong edifice of your case. When preparing your
speech you should examine which statements will likely to provoke the judges to
raise questions. You should again put your yourself in the judges’ shoes; think
about how you would analyze and decide the case if you were on the bench.
Never make a brave statement if you are not prepared with answers, this will
likely to destruct your case. However, if you have anticipated all the possible
questions and answer them excellently, you will be most persuasive.

3. Begin with your strongest arguments and quickly get into the heart of
the dispute
Always remember that in moot-court you have time constraints and you
will not have time to cover all the arguments. It is best to begin with your
strongest arguments for starting with weaker arguments will uselessly consume
your time, and if so, you may never reach your core arguments.

4. Always be prepared to modify the organization of your arguments

You must always be prepared to modify the organization of your
argument or even abandon all your arguments altogether. There are numerous
reasons why you may have to modify or change your planned structure of your
argument. First, a judge might interrupt you after you state your outline of a
planned structure and direct you to begin with your second argument or third
argument. Second, the judge may ask you a series of questions at the beginning
of our submissions which will lead you into your second argument. Third, the
judges may simply state that they do not want to hear submissions on one of
your arguments.

66
 5. Know what concessions you can make
As a lawyer appearing before a trial we are required to stand as solid as
possible to defend our case. Even if you know that your client killed other person
you will not tell that he/she has killed someone because you might think by
telling that your client did murder someone, you will lose the case. However,
making concessions is also a way in achieving victory in moot-court, and to a
larger extent, in real litigation/arbitration.
Drafter of a moot problem sometimes put facts that goes against one side
and advantage for the other. As a lawyer defending the weak party, you might
be unwilling to accept the fact. Instead of helping you with the case, such defence
can be a boomerang for you, especially when you are unwilling to concede to
concede minor points that are not essential to your case and even when you
actually already realize that none of the judges on the bench accepts your point ,
you will likely to appear rigid and unreasonable. The judge will be happier if you
concede on that point. The best way is to find alternative answers for such
disadvantageous facts, you must think this through in advance. This alternative
answer is a huge advantage for you and the judges will take big credits on you.
Nevertheless, making concessions must be made with extra care. If you
make a concession without giving a thorough thinking about its implications,
and a few minutes later you discover that you have conceded half of your case.
The best way is to think thoroughly in advance about your arguments.

Responding to Questions from the Bench

How provocative a judge can be really depends on your presentation, but
always try not to view the judges as adversaries who are there to trip you and
make you look stupid. As a good mooter you will expect the Bench to ask
questions or make comments on your presentation. A silent judge is less
advantageous in moot because you cannot figure what they have in their minds.
Once they raise question and make comments, you will have the first hint of
what they are thinking. Questions and comments are the windows to the minds
of the judges, therefore you must pay attention to questions and comments posed
to you and your opponents.
Judges can be of so many kind, rude, arrogant, obnoxious, kind-hearted,
or even unfair. No matter how the judge appears, you must always be polite and
deferential. If a judge becomes aggressive, the normal reaction is to be aggressive
in return, this must not happen in moot. If this is the case, the best way is to be
even more polite, he then will understand your message. Or at least you will win
sympathy from the other judges.
The judges in moot are usually well prepared and knowledgeable. But
sometimes due to their lack of time or their tired mind, they are not as prepared
as they should be. This will lead to their failure to observe the details of the
problem or sometimes even general facts of the case. They sometimes ask stupid
or irrelevant questions. If this is the case, here are a few things you must do:

67
 a). Never point out a mistake by a judge, or tell them directly or indirectly
that they are wrong (even when it is true). The most you should do is
politely disagree.
b). Never let a judge know by your words or actions that you think his
question or comment was stupid or irrelevant.
c). Never appear to be lecturing or talking down to a judge.
d). Never appear that you know more than a judge does
e). Never interrupt a judge when he/she is making a comment or asking a
question and stop immediately if a judge is trying to raise a
question/comment.
f). Never tell a judge that he is confused or that he doesn’t understand. If it is
apparent that a judge is unable to follow your argument, the best way is to
pretend that it is your fault that he is confused. Say something like: “I’m
sorry I haven’t been able to make myself clear, please allow me to restate
my arguments more clearly” then repeat your point in different words,
simpler words.

Always welcome any kinds of comments and questions, always give the
general impression that you are happy to assist the judge. Here are a few do’s
and don’ts when answering to questions.

Do’s:
1. Maintain eye contact, during question and response. You should maintain
eye contact even after answering the question. This will let you know
whether a judge is satisfied to your answer or not.
2. Listen carefully and attentively to the question.
3. You can ask politely when you don’t understand a question, say: “I’m
sorry, sir, can you kindly repeat you question?” but never say: “can you
rephrase your question, sir?” this will make the impression that a judge is
not smart in his/her question, and this will make them look stupid that
their question is not understandable.
4. Pause and think before answering. Think about the implications before
giving response.
5. Respond directly and fully as possible. Don’t start by making long
comments as the judge may think you are trying to slide away from a
tough question, although you will come to the same conclusion.
6. Reassert control and move back to your planned submission. Sometimes a
judge asks a question which does relates to your next argument, if this is
the case politely answer the question and move back to your planned
argument as smooth as possible. However, this is a very difficult
technique to master, even for senior mooters.
7. When a judge asks you a difficult question, there is nothing wrong with
letting him/her know that it is hard even when you actually know the

68
 answer. Making a longer pause should accomplish this. Judges are human
and it makes them feel good if they think they had managed to ask a
difficult question that forced you to pause and think. They then give you
higher mark for ‘thinking on your feet’ and answering a difficult question
that they think you hadn’t anticipated when you actually have.

Don’ts:
1. Don’t ever think that a raised question is designed to test your argument
and point out weaknesses. Sometimes questions or comments are raised in
order to help you out of a difficult situation.
2. Never attempt to answer a question by asking a question in return, the
judge will likely to be offended.
3. Never think that a question or a point made by a judge is unimportant or
irrelevant.
4. Never attempt to bluff. If you don’t know the answer ask for an apology
and say that you don’t know or cannot remember, this will be less
damaging than bluffing and get caught.
5. Never concede without giving a thorough thinking. It is recommended
that you do this before the competition.

Duties of Disputing Parties before a Trial

There are two sides of a dispute before a trial, Claimant and Respondent.
The Claimant’s main task is to ‘claim’ and the Respondent’s task is to ‘respond’.
And in case of counter-claim, the Respondent is now the ‘Claimant’ and the
Claimant is the ‘Respondent’.2 Each party is required to perform in a slightly
different manner. The Claimant must show the court why the Respondent is
guilty and the Respondent must show the detrimental occurrence is not due to
their fault.
1. Duties for the Claimant
The general burden of proof theory is that a party making allegations
bears the obligation to proof. A Claimant has e slightly easier job than the
Respondent because in presenting your arguments, you need not to respond at
any points of submissions of your opponent at the early stage of the moot.
However, you must anticipate what counter-arguments will be made by the
Respondent in response to your arguments and then arrange your arguments
accordingly.
In case of counter-claim, a Claimant bears an obligation as a Respondent.
Respondent in counter-claims is the party raising the claim.

2
Compare with ‘gugatan rekonpensi’ in Indonesian Civil Law Procedure

69
2. Duties for the Respondent
As a Respondent, the duty is to ‘respond’ at the early stage of the hearing.
You must correspond with all the Claimant’s submissions. When pointing out
your structure of arguments you must explain how you are going to deal with
the arguments which have been raised by the Claimant. You should respond to
Claimant’s use of facts and use of authorities. The Respondent however, need not
to respond to Claimant’s points that are weak and inessential to your case, or
when the judges clearly do not accept their arguments. Respond merely to the
crucial points in which if you don’t respond, you will likely to loose. The
Respondent should have more awareness because the arrangement of Claimant’s
argument and how the judges react towards it may ruin your plans.
In case of counter-claim, the Respondent plays a full role as a Claimant.

3. Preparing Guidance Material to the Tribunal

Our job as lawyers performing before a hearing is mainly to assist

judges/arbitrators. This is also a work for mooters. In maritime moot, mooters
are allowed to prepare guidance material to the bench although not compulsory,
however, providing the necessary documents to the arbitrators are a good way in
providing assistance. Let’s discuss about what should be provided to the
judges/arbitrators.
We must assume that all the judges are familiar to the moot problem, so
providing the moot problem once again in the bundle is likely to be useless,
although some judges, due to their busyness, fail to observe details in the
problem. Here are a few documents that must be enclosed in a guidance. First,
your skeleton arguments,3 this will be a preliminary method to explain what
your bundle contains. Second, table of contents, this is important for the judges
to easily find the cases or regulations you are referring to each of your
arguments. Third, the applicable regulations, i.e.: Hamburg Rules, Hague-Visby
Rules, LMAA Terms, etc. It is important to note that although, for example,
LMAA Terms are applicable but not in favor of us, we do not necessarily have to
enclose it in our bundle. Fourth, case laws: this is the most important part to
enclose inside the bundle. There is an outstanding number of cases outside, we
cannot expect all the judges are familiar with the cases although some applied
cases are prominent cases.
This guidance is also part of making a persuasive effort to win the
competition, so our bundle must not confuse the judges or making any
difficulties to the judges. Sort the cases to what merely provide a good stance to
your case. Thick and bulky bundle tend to create difficulties to the judges owing
the limited space of the table. Make your bundle as effective as possible, spiral

3
Refer to page 74 to see an example of skeleton arguments.

70
strap would be a good solution. A thick and heavy hard-vinyl folder is less
recommended.
This guidance can also be provided for our opposing counsel.

4. Practicing Your Performance

Since the judges are ‘seeking for your kind assistance’ you must set your
presentation in the most effective way. Here are a few hints to make such
presentation:

Step 1: Preparing Materials to Take to the Podium/Desk

A good mooter always have everything –- facts and authorities -- inside
their brain and who can easily get them out in a performance despite the
presence of the papers. However, it is a rather impossible to remember every bit
of details, so you can bring a few materials to the podium as a precaution in case
you need to refer an issue. Here are a few important materials to bring in your
podium/desk:
a. the Problem
In private moots, documents are usually in form of correspondence, i.e.:
exchange of letter, emails, etc. Two must be mastered by a mooter; dates and
pages. The judges will usually ask you to refer by either one of them when you
are stating a fact. Not all correspondence are important to your case, so place a
tab in the important documents. ‘Post-it’ is a good tool to employ.
b. Skeleton Argument: Speech
The most probable way to lose the attention of the judges is to write your
arguments in form of long sentences and paragraphs and read them. This should
never be done, judges will take bad credits for mooters that show high
dependency to papers. Use your skeleton of arguments as a start to develop your
speech. Prepare your notes in small paper, i.e.: paper for organizers, as large
papers tend to rattle when flipped. Large paper can be employed if you are
certain you can write all of your arguments in one –maximum two- piece of
paper. Cards is less recommended since you will be required to constantly flip
them. This will create distraction to the judges especially if you don’t keep them
out of their sight. Remember that we are instigating a negotiation, not a one-way
speech.
Skeleton argument is more preferable because it is in form of ‘key words’
not ‘complete sentences’. Remember that when being in a conversation we need
to maintain eye-contact. Making speech in full-long sentences will create
dependency to your papers, and when you are totally reading, you will likely to
fail in maintaining eye-contact and subsequently loose their attention altogether.
Never employ plastic folders because it will prevent you from making
writings in case you need to change your organization of structure or to note
opponent’s contention to one of your points. Place everything in least document.

71
 The disadvantage of using skeleton arguments is it lacks conclusion.
Therefore, you can add the conclusion in the bottom part of each point. Also if
you feel that a sentence in a skeleton arguments cannot cover all of your
contention you may compose a note below each arguments, but this must also in
form of keywords not full sentences. A good mooter is a mooter that can show
less dependency on papers.

c. Authorities
You need to have the same bundle of guidance material you provide for
the bench. This way, you can easily refer a case when necessary. This bundle
should be present especially when making direct quotation from a dictum of a
judge or when a judge spot something and you need to elaborate more about the
case.
d. Blank Paper
You will need to provide blank paper to note your opponent’s arguments
or to note questions from the bench because questions can sometimes come from
more than one judge in the same time. After making the notes you can then
prepare the responses for each points or questions. Blank papers in also
recommended to take form of small papers.

Step 2: Introduction
You must inform the judge about your identity. Your name, your co-
counsel’s name and whom do you act on behalf. In arbitration moot, sometimes
it is not necessary to state your name as they already have the names of the
mooters or you might be wearing name tags. When such situation occurs, you
only have to state who your client is and what do they act as in the dispute.

Step 3: Road Map

Road map is basically a method to help the judge to foresee how your
presentation will go. In preliminary stage after introduction, road map is utmost
crucial. However, Road Map can appear more than once, consequently, there are
two types of road maps. First, the general road map, this will show the direction
of your entire presentation showing what issues will be dealt by both speakers;
and, specific road maps, this is the road map that will show the path of each
speaker with his/her own points. General road map is a summary of your
skeleton arguments and specific road map is a short elaboration of the skeleton.
Presenting general road maps consists of three issues: your frame
arguments, who will deliver, and how much time you and your partner will
spend on delivering each arguments. However, it is best to divide into merely
two parts based on the issues dealt by each speakers.
Please observe the example on the following page.

72
Example:

Skeleton arguments:

Skeleton Arguments for the Respondent

Claim
1. The Respondent contends the Tribunal has no jurisdiction
− The Claimant agrees to submit the case to Admiralty Court through its
acceptance letter dated 5 March 2003
(L’Estrange v. F. Graucob [1934] 2 K.B. 394)
− The arbitration clause is vague and is insufficient to encompass all present
dispute
− Alternatively, the Tribunal is not properly constituted
(s72 of the UK Arbitration Act’96)
2. The Respondent contends that it is not responsible towards the cargo damage
− The damage was due to the improper stowage by the Claimant
(The Orjula [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 395)
− The Vessel is seaworthy and the Respondent’s liability is limited to an
apparent due diligence.
(Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Aldgate Warehouse Ltd .[2003] Lloyd’s Rep. 597; Fowler v.
Knoop (1878) 4 C.A. 299)

Counter-Claim:
1. The Respondent seeks the Claimant to pay demurrage
− the laytime has successfully commenced
− the claimants failure to discharge productively accrued the demurrage rate
(Coli Shipping v. Andrea Merzario [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 608
2. The Claimant is liable to compensate sanction fee incurred by the
Respondent as the Claimant’s failure to provide necessitated documents.
− Attention was sufficiently drawn to the Claimant
(Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. [1949] 2 K.B. 528)
− The Respondent is entitled for compensatory damage
(Surrey County Council v Bredero Holmes Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 1361.)

The skeleton is actually the main structure of your presentation, however

it is very not recommended to state them all, it is less effective and the judges

73
will likely be bored and get confused because it is too long. Let’s see the general
road map of this skeleton:

“ Good day Mr. Chairman, members of the Tribunal……

My name is Andrew Donovan acting on behalf of Samudera
Shipping Ltd. as Respondent in the present dispute.
I will be delivering all aspects of the claim, that is,
whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the case
and whether our client is liable for the cargo damage. For
this, I will be spending 15 minutes.
My co-counsel, Mr. Ron Harper, will deliver all aspects
of the counter claim, that is the demurrage and compensation
that we seek with respect to defective provision of the
entrance permit documents. He will also be spending 15
minutes.
The Respondent seeks to save 2 minutes for reply.”

Such introduction clarifies the judges which counsel will be dealing with
which issue. After stating the general road map, we will begin to enter our
arguing stage, the first speaker will initiate the presentation. In this section each
speaker is allowed to specify more details about the arguments in their own
specific road maps, however emphasis must still be placed on effectiveness, and
lengthy words are still likely to create boredom. In this section also, the speaker
can immediately speak defending his/her client rather in general road map. In
general road map the speakers are still speaking neutrally, although making light
assertions is also allowed.

Step 4: Begin your presentation

Step 1 and Step 2 are performed solely by the first speaker, but this Step
applies for both first and second speaker. Begin your presentation with the
specific road map.

Please look at the following specific road map:

“ Members of the Tribunal,

The Claimant seeks to establish the jurisdiction of this Tribunal
by virtue of Clause 23 of the Bill of Lading Contract. I submit that
this avenue is insufficient to link my client to this Tribunal in 3
distinct ways:
- First, the Claimant has expressly acknowledged Admiralty
Court’s jurisdiction through acceptance letter dated 5 March
2003
- Second, Clause 23 is vague and is insufficient to encompass
all present dispute.
- Third & Alternatively, even if clause 23 is a valid
arbitration agreement, the Tribunal is not properly
constituted.”

74
(It is also optional to state time allocation for each
issue)

In specific road maps, assertions and allegations are already made in

strong words. After this is stated, we are allowed to begin to our elaborations.
The following is the connecting words you can use to tie general road map and
specific road map:

“Moving on to the jurisdiction issue, members of the Tribunal…”

“Members of the Tribunal, continuing to our first argument…”
etc.

75