Guide
Arbitration Moot Advocacy Guide
Preparing and delivering an oral argument in an arbitration moot, where you address a Tribunal rather than a court. Written for the Swinburne contract law moot workshop.
Which guide do I need? This version is for an arbitration moot: the decision-makers are arbitrators sitting as a Tribunal, and court forms such as “Your Honour” are not the usual convention. If your moot is heard by a judge in court, use the Court Moot Advocacy Guide instead. The structure is the same; the forms of address and the register are not.
1. Start with the finding you want
Before you write a sentence of your oral script, every member of your group should be able to answer three questions, each in one breath:
- What order or finding are you asking the Tribunal to make? Be specific. “We win” is not an order. Name the relief and say whether it is your primary or alternative position.
- Why should the Tribunal make it? This is your theory of the case: a short story that makes your outcome feel both legally correct and fair on the facts.
- What is the path? The small number of legal propositions that, if accepted, lead to that order. Usually two to four.
A theory of the case is not a list of issues
A theory combines a legal theory (the rule that produces your outcome) with a factual theory (why these facts fit that rule). A quick test is whether an arbitrator could repeat it to a colleague in one sentence after the hearing. If they couldn’t, it needs more work.
The sentence to have ready at all times
Write one sentence that captures your whole case. Put it at the top of every page of your notes. It is what you return to when you lose your place, when a question knocks you off course, or when you have 20 seconds left.
The 75-word test
Adapted from Bryan Garner’s deep issue technique (The Winning Brief). Reduce each core submission to 75 words or fewer, in three parts:
- Rule: the legal principle (the major premise).
- Facts: the facts that bring you within it (the minor premise).
- Therefore: the conclusion, or the question the Tribunal must answer.
If you can’t get a submission under 75 words, it usually isn’t clear enough yet in your own head.
Stay inside the dispute
The Notice of Dispute and the Response to Notice of Dispute do the job that pleadings do in court: they define what is in dispute. Check that your submissions, and the relief you ask for, stay within them.
2. Build the oral structure
Each speaker’s address should have the same basic structure. The Tribunal should never have to wonder where you are going.
| Part | Roughly | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Appearance | 15 sec | “May it please the Tribunal. My name is __, and I appear with __ for the [Claimant / Respondent], [party name].” |
| Roadmap | 30 sec | How many submissions, what each one is in one line, and who is making which. The Tribunal now knows the shape of the whole case. |
| Submissions | Most of your time | Each submission follows the anatomy below. Deal with them in the order you announced. |
| Conclusion | 20 sec | Restate the order you seek. “Unless the Tribunal has any further questions, those are the submissions for the [party].” |
Roadmap template
“Members of the Tribunal, the [Claimant / Respondent] makes [three] submissions. First, that [one-line proposition]. Second, that [one-line proposition]. Third, that [one-line proposition]. I will address the first and second submissions. My co-counsel, [name], will address the third submission and the relief sought. The [party] asks the Tribunal to [order sought].”
Anatomy of a single submission
| Step | What to say |
|---|---|
| 1. Proposition | “The [party] submits that [proposition].” Say the answer first. |
| 2. Rule | “The principle is stated in [authority] at [pinpoint]: [one-sentence principle].” |
| 3. Application | “Here, [fact], as appears from [Exhibit __], at page __ of the problem.” |
| 4. The other side | “The [opposing party] may say [their best point]. The answer is [your response].” Deal with it briefly and on your terms. |
| 5. Mini-conclusion | “For those reasons, the Tribunal should find that [finding].” Then signpost the next submission. |
Structural principles
- Answer first, reasons second. Start every submission, and every answer to a question, with your conclusion.
- Don’t recite the facts. The Tribunal has read the problem. Use facts inside your submissions, where they do work, not as a preamble.
- Fewer, stronger points. Three well-developed submissions beat six thin ones. Choosing what to leave out is part of the skill.
- Flag alternatives out loud. “If the Tribunal is against me on that, the [party] submits in the alternative that…” An alternative that isn’t signposted sounds like a contradiction.
- Openings and closings matter most. People remember the first and last things they hear. Script those two parts most carefully.
From experience In my first round in the Advocacy moot I spent far too long setting out the facts. I ran over time, missed the timekeeper’s signal, and cost my co-counsel about five minutes of their address. The bench had already read the facts. They wanted the argument.
3. Signposting and transitions
Signposting is telling the Tribunal where you are, where you’re going, and when you’ve arrived. It feels repetitive when you write it. It sounds clear when you say it.
| When you are… | Try saying |
|---|---|
| Starting a submission | “I turn now to my second submission, which is that…” |
| Stating a proposition | “The Claimant submits that…” / “It is submitted that…” |
| Taking the Tribunal to a document | “If the Tribunal would turn to Respondent’s Exhibit 3, at page 18 of the problem…” Then pause until they are there. |
| Citing an authority | “The principle is stated in [case] at paragraph [x], where [judge] said…” |
| Putting an alternative | “In the alternative…” / “Even if the Tribunal were to find that…, the [party] submits that…” |
| Returning after a question | “Returning to my second submission…” / “That brings me back to the point I was making, which is…” |
| Finishing a submission | “For those reasons, the Tribunal should find that… That completes my second submission.” |
| Handing over | “Unless I can assist the Tribunal further, those are my submissions. My co-counsel, [name], will now address [topic].” |
| Picking up from co-counsel | “May it please the Tribunal. As my co-counsel foreshadowed, I will address [topic].” |
| Running out of time | “I see that my time has expired. May I have 30 seconds to conclude?” Then do it in one sentence. |
Transitions between speakers
- Use identical labels. If speaker one calls it “the second submission”, speaker two must too. Agree short labels in advance and don’t improvise new ones on the day.
- The first roadmap covers both speakers. The Tribunal should hear the whole team’s structure once, at the start.
- Script the handover. Write out the exact handover sentence for both speakers. It is the moment most likely to wobble.
- Never just deflect. If you’re asked about your co-counsel’s topic: “My co-counsel will address that in detail. In short, the answer is [one sentence].”
- Cover for each other. Speaker two should have a compressed version of anything speaker one might not reach.
4. Etiquette and forms of address
This is an arbitration, not a court The decision-makers are arbitrators, sitting as a Tribunal. Court forms like “Your Honour” are not the usual convention for arbitrators. Check with your convenor which forms of address are expected in this moot, and then use them consistently.
| Situation | Say | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Opening | “May it please the Tribunal.” | Launching straight into argument |
| The panel as a whole | “Members of the Tribunal” / “the Tribunal” | “Your Honours” (unless told to), “you guys” |
| The presiding arbitrator (if identified) | “Mr President” / “Madam President”, or as directed | Guessing a title. If unsure, “Members of the Tribunal” is always safe |
| One arbitrator | “Arbitrator [surname]” or “Mr / Ms / Dr [surname]” | First names |
| Your opponent | “My learned friend” / “counsel for the Respondent” | “They”, “the other side”, first names |
| The parties | “The Claimant, Summit Cycle” / “the Respondent, Harbourgate”. Pick one form and stick to it | Switching between “we”, “Summit” and “my client” mid-sentence |
| Your position | “The Claimant submits…” / “It is submitted…” | “I think”, “I feel”, “I believe” (advocates don’t give personal opinions) |
| Agreeing / disagreeing | “Yes.” / “With respect, the Respondent’s position is…” | “Yeah”, “No worries”, “That’s wrong” |
Conduct at the bar table
- Be early. Arrive with time to settle, lay out your papers and breathe.
- Stand when you address the Tribunal. Sit while your opponent speaks.
- Stop immediately when an arbitrator starts speaking. Never talk over the bench.
- No visible reactions while your opponent is speaking: no head-shaking, sighing or eye-rolling. Pass notes to your co-counsel silently.
- Tidy table: water, one pen, your notes in order, phone off.
- Dress in business attire unless your convenor says otherwise.
From experience I arrived two minutes late to my first moot round. The judge noticed and said so, and I spent the whole address trying to get my composure back. Being early is the easiest mark you will ever protect.
Ethics you will meet in a moot
- Stay inside the record. Don’t assert facts that aren’t in the moot problem. If you are asking the Tribunal to draw an inference, say so: “The Tribunal may infer from [fact] that…”
- Quote the primary source. The Summary of Facts is a summary. When you rely on what a document says, take the Tribunal to the exhibit itself and quote it exactly.
- Represent authorities accurately. Don’t stretch a case beyond what it decided. If you realise you have misstated something, correct it as soon as you can.
- Deal with adverse authority. An authority that is squarely against you is better distinguished openly than left for the Tribunal to find.
From experience In my second round I made a factual assertion that wasn’t in the brief. When the judge picked it up, I withdrew it and moved on, and that was the right call: withdraw cleanly and don’t dig. Different benches are more or less strict about the record, so don’t count on a generous one.
5. Answering questions from the Tribunal
Questions are not interruptions. They tell you exactly what the decision-maker is worried about, and they show whether you understand your case or have only learned your script. The Tribunal’s concern is the most important point in the room. If you don’t deal with it, you lose that point.
The five-step answer
| Step | How |
|---|---|
| 1. Listen | Stop talking. Hear the whole question. Don’t start answering halfway through. |
| 2. Pause | Two seconds is fine and looks considered. If you didn’t follow the question: “Is the Tribunal asking whether…?” |
| 3. Answer directly | “Yes.” / “No.” / “The Respondent’s answer is…” Give the answer in the first sentence. |
| 4. Support it | The clause, exhibit or authority that backs the answer, with a pinpoint. |
| 5. Bridge back | “…and that is why the Tribunal should find [X]. Returning to my second submission…” |
Types of question
| Type | Sounds like | How to handle it |
|---|---|---|
| Clarification | “Which clause are you relying on?” | Answer precisely, with the reference. This is where knowing the record pays off. |
| Friendly | A question that offers you a point | Recognise it, accept it, and don’t argue against it. |
| Testing | “Isn’t that inconsistent with…?” | Acknowledge the difficulty, then answer it: “That is the difficulty for the Claimant, and the answer is…” |
| Hypothetical | “What if the email had said…?” | Engage with it honestly, then show why the actual facts differ. |
| “Assume I’m against you” | “Suppose I reject your first submission. What then?” | Move to your alternative. This is why you prepare one. |
| Co-counsel’s topic | A question on the other speaker’s ground | Give a one-sentence answer, then signpost that your co-counsel will develop it. |
| You don’t know | Anything you genuinely can’t answer | Don’t bluff. Answer the part you can, and be honest about the rest. |
Concessions
- Concede what can’t be defended, early and on your own terms. A concession you offer costs far less than one pulled out of you under questioning, and it makes the Tribunal trust the points you keep.
- Know your must-win points. Before the moot, list what your case cannot survive without, and never give those away by accident.
- A concession isn’t a collapse. “The Claimant accepts that [X]. That does not affect the submission, because [Y].”
From experience I prepared a full list of answers to likely questions and didn’t use a single one in either round. I had rehearsed my script but never rehearsed being interrupted. Preparing answers is not enough: you need to practise pulling them out under pressure (see section 9).
6. Using authorities and exhibits out loud
- Say what the case stands for first, in one sentence, before reading anything from it. Often the one sentence is all you need.
- One good authority per proposition is usually enough.
- Always give the pinpoint: “at paragraph 42” or “at page 286”.
- Say case names the way courts do. Civil cases: “Smith and Jones”, not “Smith vee Jones”. Your written submissions carry the full AGLC4 citation, so you don’t need to read it aloud unless your rules require it.
- Quote briefly. Tell the Tribunal where the passage is, wait until they have found it, then read slowly.
- Refer to exhibits by their label and page: “Claimant’s Exhibit 2, at page 11.”
Know every authority well enough to be questioned on it
For each authority you rely on, you should be able to say without notes: the key facts in two sentences, the principle and its pinpoint, and how the other side will try to distinguish it. Do the same for the authorities you expect your opponent to use. Knowing their cases as well as your own is what lets you rebut.
From experience The biggest gap in my own moot preparation was not studying my opponent’s likely authorities in advance. I understood their cases well enough to follow the argument, but not well enough to say persuasively why they shouldn’t apply.
7. Managing your time
- Time your script in units. Next to each paragraph, write how long it takes to say aloud at a deliberate pace (roughly 120 to 140 words a minute). Add a running total.
- Mark what to “cut first”. Decide in advance which paragraphs go if you fall behind. On the day you won’t have time to decide.
- Write a 30-second version of every submission. If a long question eats your time, switch to it.
- Leave room for questions. A script that fills 100% of your time will run over at the first question. Aim for about two-thirds of your allocation.
- Watch the timekeeper and agree a signal with your co-counsel.
- If time runs out: ask for leave to conclude, then give the order you seek in one sentence. Don’t try to squeeze in the rest of the submission.
8. Delivery
| Aspect | Aim for |
|---|---|
| Notes | An outline or cards with headlines and references, not a full script. A full script tempts you to read, and reading kills eye contact. |
| Pace | Slower than feels natural. Pause after each key proposition. Short sentences land. Full stops are your friend. |
| Eye contact | With every member of the panel, not only the one who asked the question. |
| Voice | Project to the back of the room. Vary your tone. Watch for a rising inflection at the end of statements, which makes them sound like questions. |
| Fillers | Replace “um”, “like”, “basically”, “obviously” and “clearly” with a pause. |
| Body | Feet planted, hands still or resting on the lectern. Take one slow breath before you stand. No pacing, swaying or pen-clicking. |
| Repetition | Use your theory sentence three times: in the opening, once in the body, and in the close. |
9. How to practise this week
- Out loud, standing, with a timer. Rehearsing in your head doesn’t count.
- Rehearse under interruption. Have a teammate interrupt you roughly every 60 seconds with a question. It is the only way to practise getting back to your structure.
- Swap sides for ten minutes. Argue your opponent’s best case. If you can’t state their best argument fairly, you aren’t ready to answer it.
- Record yourself once on your phone and watch it back for pace and fillers.
- Work from one shared document so every group member can see the latest version. Keeping separate files on separate laptops leads to a last-minute scramble.
Checklist before you stand up
- I can state the order we are asking for, in one sentence.
- I can state our theory of the case in one sentence, and it is at the top of my notes.
- My roadmap names every submission, and who is making it.
- Every submission starts with its conclusion.
- Every fact I rely on is in the moot problem, and I know the exhibit and page.
- Every authority has a one-sentence proposition and a pinpoint.
- I know the other side’s best argument and my answer to it.
- I know what I will say if the Tribunal rejects our primary argument.
- My script is timed, with “cut first” paragraphs marked and 30-second versions ready.
- Our handover sentence is written out, word for word.
- I know the forms of address for this Tribunal.
- I know where the room is and I will be there early.
Prepared by Joseph Roshier, volunteer advocacy tutor. A study aid, not legal advice or a marking guide: your unit’s own instructions always come first. You’re welcome to use and adapt it, with credit.