Oxford Law students take part in Landmark Chambers Moot
The Oxford team reached the final of the Landmark Chambers Property Mooting Competition. Eighteen universities participated in this inaugural Property Mooting Competition, which took place over three months and three rounds at Landmark Chambers in London.
In the first round, the Oxford team competed against teams from University of Sussex and University of Brighton. Laura and Jocelyn (from Oxford) represented the Secretary of State as interveners in an appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law involving the effect of s.144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on the adverse possession scheme of the Limitation Act 1980, and succeeded in convincing the Court that the new act effected a change in the law.
Having advanced to the second round of the competition, the Oxford team met University of Surrey in another appeal to the Supreme Court on the law surrounding implied terms and repudiatory breach of leases. This time, even though the Supreme Court did not side with the Oxford team on the points of law, they still succeeded to win the moot by showing that they can work well under pressure and give reasoned and analytical answers to the interventions of the judge.
The finalists, pictured from left to right, were Jocelyn Teo, Laura Ruxandu (University of Oxford), Imogen Dodds, Sarah Jameson (University of Cambridge), Fareed Anees, Dan Anghelache (University of Southampton), Laura Fitzgibbon, Daniel Boon (Durham University). David Holland QC and Tim Morshead QC judged the final.
The Grand Final of the Landmark Chambers Property Moot brought together four teams from University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Cambridge, and University of Durham. The teams appeared in an appeal and a consolidated appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the validity of different covenants. Laura and Jocelyn (from Oxford) argued in favour of overruling the law on annexation of covenants as established in Federated Homes, but maintaining the narrow interpretation of the concepts of ‘nuisance and annoyance’. The panel formed of Mr David Holland QC and Mr Tim Morshead QC adopted a revolutionary approach in overruling precedent and taking into consideration broader policy concerns, being persuaded by the legal arguments advanced by the Oxford team. The two individual winners of the competition were Fareed Anees (University of Southampton) and Imogen Dodds (University of Cambridge).