Our finals day, (Wednesday 8 May) began with an 8am pleading against the University of Buenos Aires. This was a good moot, and Buenos Aries were a strong team. David and Katherine put forward an excellent case for Mr Tisk. The Arbitral Tribunal thought so too, and we proceeded through to the round of the top 32 teams.
We had found ourselves in a very tough bracket, and so our next opponents were the team from the University of Belgrade. We had met this team during the pre-moot competition in Belgrade and so we knew it was going to be a tough moot. Once again though, when your opponents are excellent, it gives you the opportunity to hit back with that much more force, and David and Katherine certainly did. However, it was a very anxious wait to find out which team would be progressing on for the round of the top 16. This was the longest wait that David and Katherine (and Petra, Richard and Mike) would wait during the competition, so it was evident that the two teams were very closely matched. Happily for us, we were announced as the victors and would proceed to the next round. It is fair to say though, that if Katherine and David had been knocked out, they would have been happy to go out against a team like Belgrade.
We had a very short break for lunch, and then it was a 2pm moot against Touro College Law Center. In a little back story, Touro beat out last year's Vic team of Arjun and Catherine, so we knew we were heading into a tough pleading. We know we have said this about every team we have pleaded against, but Touro were another excellent team, and it was another very good performance from both teams. Our Chairman for this round was Professor Martin Hunter, and he was very pleased to hear that Katherine was not in fact arguing for the application of the group of companies doctrine. That fact alone may have been the reason we managed to take victory and proceed to the quarter finals. However, it must be said that David was an absolute champion in this moots, that charming Irish accent hides the might of this future litigator.
On to the final moot of the day then. Lucky for Katherine and David their build-up to the competition saw them moot four and five times in a day, so they were well prepared for the long day that it had become. The final moot of the day at 5.30pm was against two very lovely ladies from Tulane University, in New Orleans. Katherine and David were respondents in this pleading, so we got to hear our opponents speak and then, funnily enough, respond. When the first speaker for Tulane began, the words of Justice Baragwanath rang loudly. The Tulane team were amazing. Seriously good, and so Katherine was a little intimidated. But, of course, as has been said many times already in this blog, good team = good response. This moot was Katherine's favourite. The Tulane team argued the case for Claimant exactly as we did. Accordingly, we had an excellent opportunity to tear down our own arguments, and we did. In a very sportsmanlike manner of course, but nonetheless, Katherine came out firing, and it was clear to all who were watching that this was a moot that would not be forgotten. David followed up on Katherine's excellent performance and we are pleased to say we sealed the performance and took out a win. Unfortunately, that did mean that we missed the final MAA party at the Empire club that night. The final is held on the Thursday before good Friday, so for most teams in Vienna, Wednesday night is the last opportunity to really get amongst it. For us, we had a quiet dinner and went straight home to bed for a very well deserved rest. The next morning we were against King's College in the semi-final, would we make it through to the final?
No comments:
Post a Comment