This year’s moot problem revolved around two controversial issues of law. The first concerned the establishment of a beneficial interest over a property that was transferred for an illegal purpose. Mooters were invited to make submissions on whether the reliance principle established in Tinsley v Milligan  1 AC 340 should continue to be applied. The second issue related to the availability of an action for the price in a contract for the sale of goods. Resolution of this issue depended upon the proper construction of section 49 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
In order to foster closer relationships amongst Oxford students and alumni, alumni currently practising as barristers in leading sets of chambers in Hong Kong were invited to mentor the participating teams. Special thanks go to the four practitioners who offered their kind assistance this year: Mr Christopher Chain, Mr Jeffrey Tam, Mr Keith Lam and Mr Ken Lee. Their advice has been invaluable to the mooters and the mooters all benefited from their tutelage.
In the spirit of the traditional Oxford mooting convention, the moot was held in three rounds on a single day during which mooters were required to make submissions on behalf of both the Appellant and Respondent. Four teams entered this year’s competition. The two teams with the highest aggregate score from the two preliminary rounds were randomly assigned sides in the Grand Final. The two preliminary rounds were presided over by Dr William Wong SC, Mr Abraham Chan, Mr Jonathan Chang and Ms Eva Sit.
The Grand Final was judged by the Honourable Mr Justice Bokhary, Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong. Howard Wong (BCL, 2016) and Latifah Sat (BA, 2017) for the respondents defeated Geoffrey Yeung (BCL, 2016) and Jeffrey Fong (BA, 2017) for the appellants. The Grand Final was then followed by a 10-course Chinese style dinner.