Making the case for why UNSW Law & Justice competitions matter

When I applied for the Oxford International IP Moot, I had no prior mooting experience — only a strong interest in intellectual property shaped by my prior studies and earlier work in art curatorship. I had spoken briefly with Michael (Handler, Coach Professor for the UNSW team) about what to expect from the competition. Being selected through the application process felt like a meaningful achievement in itself.

Meeting the team reinforced that sense of anticipation. It was immediately clear that Zain and Samuel had sharp legal minds and brought a thoughtful approach to advocacy, and from the outset the process felt genuinely collaborative. We established an open and constructive feedback process early on, where ideas were tested, refined and frequently revised. There was a shared willingness to revisit even well-developed drafts in the interest of improving the overall submission. This approach proved central to the strength of our work.

Arriving in Oxford brought the experience into sharp focus. The welcome events at Queen’s College, and the opportunity to engage with teams from across the world, underscored the scale and significance of the moot.

Across the preliminary rounds, we secured three out of four wins. It was very enjoyable to become acquainted with different participants from all around the world throughout the rounds and events hosted by Oxford. There was a great sense of camaraderie.

The announcement of the quarterfinalists on Friday evening was a particularly tense moment. Hearing “UNSW” called as the final team through was exhilarating — especially given the strength of the Australian contingent that year (with all other Australian unis in the oral rounds progressing).

We faced UTS in the quarterfinals and ANU in the semi-finals, encountering a consistently high standard of advocacy. Each round required focus, adaptability and trust in our collective work. It was thrilling to progress one by one through these rounds to reach the finals.

At the finals, presenting before such a distinguished panel — Lord Kitchin, Lord Justice Birss and Justice Mellor — was a great honour. The moot was rigorous and engaging. Although the respondent (our side) ultimately failed on the appeal, we were able to persuade the bench on a key legal issue. To then be announced as winners of the moot and the overall competition felt surreal. The closing events, including the final banquet at Queen’s College, provided a rare opportunity to speak informally with members of the bench and reflect on the competition in a more relaxed setting.

We were also stoked to receive second place globally for our written submissions among 72 international teams, which was particularly meaningful given the emphasis we placed on that stage of the process.

Our achievements throughout reflect the hard work and teamwork of the entire group, and Michael’s outstanding mentorship and support. Michael’s patience, encouragement and constructive feedback helped us grow both individually and as a team. His coaching played a key role in elevating our performance to the next level.

What stands out most from this experience is the character of the competition itself: an opportunity to engage seriously with complex legal questions alongside students from a wide range of jurisdictions, within an environment that fostered both intellectual rigour and collegial exchange.

This has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my time at university, and one I will carry forward.

I was always told that “mooting is a small world” and since I had started mooting fairly late in my Law degree, I thought I had missed the boat with the big opportunities. I had only heard about faculty-run international moots days before receiving the email invitation to apply to UNSW’s Oxford IP Moot team. I had always been confident in my mooting skills, but also had always felt that I didn’t have the opportunities to prove my abilities. I still decided to apply and was very surprised to have been selected. 

Once I met my team, I felt much more at home. The three of us were from very different backgrounds, and none of us had much or any mooting experience. Despite our differences, we got along well organically from the start and I could tell we would be in good hands with Michael as our coach. Despite being the only one with no real-life or academic IP experience, I was never made to feel out of place and always felt that I could turn to anyone on the team to run me through anything I struggled with. 

That being said, I did still feel something akin to imposter syndrome due to the way other “mooters” reacted to our team. Some people with extensive mooting experience bluntly told me “you’re cooked”. I had never been worried about our team’s lack of mooting experience, and neither were my teammates, which was all that mattered. I was particularly encouraged by my teammates’ resolve being further strengthened by these remarks, which we would eventually joke about after winning the Grand Final.

Our preparation was very thorough, which is something that we were all very proud of. When I was being interviewed for a spot on the team, I remember telling Michael that I usually made a point of prepping enough to be able to answer most, if not all, weird or fringe questions from judges (even if it meant losing some sleep because of it). Although we were changing and refining and tweaking things right up till the last hour, I have always been proud of the fact that we knew what we were doing every step of the way. I was not surprised at all that we received an invitation to the oral proceedings. I won’t be so conceited to say we expected the 2nd place prize (although we were all confident we would finish in the top 5 for written submissions).

Our thorough preparations continued into the oral practice sessions. They were relentless and every session resulted in material changes. However, like with our written phase, every change was purposeful and measured. I was particularly happy to see all of us (including Michael) being so willing to experiment with different approaches, even if it meant going back to something we previously discarded only to discard it again. Nailing the ‘conversational’ feeling was particularly difficult, something which I personally was still working on even in the first preliminary rounds in Oxford. But all our practice sessions paid off, particularly with guest judges. 

Everything clicked and everything was ironed out by the final day of prelim rounds. I remember the warm compliments our team received from both judges and other teams for our approachable but confident manner. Each of us had found our own style of advocacy, and although my personal efforts to make the judges and the audience smile didn’t always land, I think everyone could tell that we were enjoying ourselves, which is what I wanted.

They were meant to announce quarter-finalists after a dinner which concluded around 9pm. I wasn’t sure why, but I was very stressed about printing an additional bundle for an expanded quarter-final Bench (since the printing places shut down at 9pm). I think that showed that I never had any doubt that we would make it in, although my faith briefly wavered by the end of the announcements since we were the very last team to be announced. The joy and relief that we were in the Quarter-Finals was quickly overtaken by the printing stress, which I didn’t mind so much anymore. Luckily, we were able to make do without an additional bundle in the QFs and SFs.

The final day, which consisted of the QF, SF and the GF all went by in a blur. I don’t think any of us on the team had any time to stress about making it into the next round, both because the rounds were very close in time and also because I made it my personal mission to make sure my printing stress infected the rest of the team. I think that was for the best, because we all went into each round just wanting to do our best and have the best time we could.

I think each team was absolutely stellar, but I do sincerely think our team was the strongest on the law by far. That being said, I know we didn’t make it to the finals, and we certainly didn’t win because of the strength of our legal argument. I can’t be sure, but I strongly feel that we won simply because our team was able to sweep the judges and audience along with us as each of us went on a frolic of our own.

I think that was most apparent in the GF where I could see and hear the judges (and especially the audience) smile, laugh and be mesmerised by our team’s performance. I’ll never forget how Lord Justice Birss leaned back in his chair in playful outrage during the banter I had with him, or how happy Lana looked when she took the judges to a case cited by the opposing team, saying “I really like this case,” or indeed how she managed to end the proceedings with a joke by putting a smile on all their faces. We were enjoying ourselves, and because of that, the judges and the audience were too.

What was especially remarkable was the reception we received from other teams, and even judges and clerks from other rounds. Despite coming from completely different parts of the world and having very different life experiences, it really felt like we had developed a community and bonds we would cherish for the rest of our lives.

I can’t say I was surprised that we won. I mean, after all that, how could we not?

This was one of the most seamless group dynamics I have experienced at uni and arguably over the course of my life. It was a genuine pleasure to work with both Lana and Zain throughout this process. Both brought a high degree of enthusiasm and incredible rigor, intelligence and maturity to their work. At no point did anyone not pull their weight. In my opinion, the key strength for all of us was our willingness to show interest in the work of the others. At no point did it feel like a group of 3 individuals; it was consistently an integrated whole (This is not a Trump v Simon and Schuster reference...) and this diversity of thought brought newfound strength to our arguments. There was nothing to be surprised by when we came to the oral proceedings.

Secondly, Lana and Zain, you should both be incredibly proud of your personal development over the course of the moot. Lana, I still remember your first practice moot where you were still learning the ropes of how mooting worked and felt flustered when placed under the pressure of questioning. You should be incredibly proud of developing your skills to the stage where you were happily holding court with some of the UK's finest judges under more intense questioning. And for you, Zain, I distinctly remember having a discussion at the beginning of the moot about how badly the argument on certainty was for Hayes and your thoughts to jettison it entirely. To see you argue that hopeless point before the judges in the best way you could is a testament to your development as an advocate.

I tend to believe that our success was because we did an extra 20 per cent worth of work when compared to other teams. As was alluded to by both Lana and Zain, our research was very precise, intentional and comprehensive (including an unhealthy amount of Interlibrary loans - thank you to the library for putting up with us). Whether it was bringing in Trump, running the extra point on intention or Zain's public policy point on confidence, our submissions always tried to push the case as far as was reasonably arguable and was grounded in cold hard law which other teams simply did not have the legal toolkit to respond to. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that our strong research in the written submissions carried through to our performance in the oral proceedings.

I also think the team really grasped and took to heart the weaknesses in both sides of the case. Where other teams tried to hide the unfavourable facts, our submissions tried to lean into them as best we could and that intellectual honesty, I think, was appreciated by the court as it demonstrated to them that we knew what issues were important and which ones were not - saving us time and likely improving their perception of our ability. 

Our success was inextricably linked with the support shown to us by the faculty and, in particular, our wonderful coach Michael. It was a genuine privilege to work closely with Michael over the course of preparing the written submissions and getting ready for Oxford. Whether it was reading our draft submissions, responding to my long academic excursuses on Teams or listening to us at the dead of night a couple of times a week, Michael always did his best to guide us in the right direction, providing incredibly useful feedback and drawing on his extensive knowledge of the subject matter. Further, the assistance and time of the other practice moot judges (who were other members of the faculty, alumni and other practitioners) were invaluable at bringing different perspectives to our work - not being tied up in the intricacies of the problem.

Once again, incredible work all! On a personal note, preparing for and going to Oxford has easily been the highlight of my time at university (and a really lovely way to end my degree). Thank you to the faculty, Lana, Zain and Michael for the opportunity and for making this possible!