MOOTING –

Appearing and Performing

Courtroom Etiquette

A. Ethical duties of Counsel

The most important role of a lawyer is his or her duty to assist the judges in their decision-making. It is also a lawyer’s obligation to conduct
the case honestly, i.e. you must never suppress information nor ignore a precedent, even if it is quite damaging to your case. What you say
and do is for the judges' benefit, so keep a careful watch on them to see if they are following your argument. Allow them time to find a
citation, unless they indicate you should go on. Interact with the judge. Talk to them, not at them. This would also mean that would should
not suppress information or it would bring damage to your case.

B. Courtesies

Mooting is a formal activity where participants take part in simulated court proceedings, usually to include drafting briefs and participating
in oral argument where certain ‘etiquette’ must be followed. If one of the following rules were not followed, your result may be marked
down.

What to wear

You may be given guidelines on what to wear by your mooting officer, or in your mooting rules. Some friendly moots are more relaxed as
regards dress code while others have stricter standards.

It generally adds to the atmosphere of the moot if the advocates are smartly dressed in business-like attire. Wear something smart and dark
e.g. a suit and (if possible) a gown. It is important that you make a good impression on the judge the minute he/she looks at you. You will be
provided with black gowns, which help to create a court like feeling for the proceedings.

Where to sit

The counsel for the Appellant will sit on the left of the bar table, which is to the judge’s right whereas the counsel for the Respondent will sit
on the right of the bar table, which is to the judge’s left.

Stand Up/Sit Down

You should always be standing when speaking/addressing to the judge. If the opposing counsel stands to make his/her submission during the
course of your address, you should sit down. This is to avoid the potential problem of counsels arguing between themselves rather than
courteously addressing the Court. In addition, if the judge directs a question to a counsel who is not presently standing, take a cue and sit if
you are standing. On the other hand, you should stand if you are the one addressed in this instance.

How to Conduct Yourself

It is most important that you retain complete self-control during the course of proceedings. This applies with respect to addressing witness as
well as addressing the judge. If you wish to persist in disagreeing with the judge, it is generally accepted that you do so by prefacing any
contrary remark with "With respect, Your Honour ...’ or indeed, if the point is taken further, ‘With the greatest respect, Your Honour ...’. If
the judge continues to disagree with you in a moot it may be a hint to drop a poor argument and move on to something more useful.

Demeanor towards the Court

The term ‘respectful intellectual equality’ is important when you are in Court. It is important that you retain complete self-control during the
course of proceedings, which applies with respect to addressing the judge and your opponents. It is equally important to be confidence and
sincere before the Court. Do not try to be funny? It’s all right however to smile when it is appropriate (as when a joke is made). Aside from
that, it is also crucial to bear in mind that all teams shall avoid all unnecessary noise, outbursts, or other inappropriate behavior that distracts
from the argument in progress.

C. Modes of Address

Referring to other counsel

When referring to you team member, the correct term to address him/her would be “ my learned co-counsel” or “my co-counsel”. The two
opposing mooters should never be called 'the opposition' and certainly not 'the enemy' or 'them over there'. (You would be surprised what
terms are used!) The correct manner of referring to other counsel is as 'My Learned Friend(s)' or 'My Learned Friends Opposite'.

Example: 'My Learned Friends opposite have cited a number of interesting cases'
Addressing the Court

A single male judge, in both the Federal Court and Court of Appeal is to be referred to as 'My Lord' or ‘Your Lordship’/ ‘Yang Arif’. A
bench of male or mixture of male and female judges is referred to as 'My Lords' or 'Your Lordships'/‘Yang Arif-Yang Arif’;. A single female
judge can be referred to as 'My Lady' or 'Your Ladyship'/Yang Arif’, although some female judges may prefer to be Lords - it may be wise to
check the judge's preference before the moot starts. A female panel may also be Ladyships or Lordships. 'Your honour' is not suitable for
addressing the judge in an appellate court, no matter how many times you hear it on television!

Example: 'I am grateful to your Lordship'/“ Saya menghargainya Yang Arif”

D. Presenting your case

General Rules

Before the judge arrives, the Counsel will usually be in the courtroom. As the judge enters the court, the bailiff, if there is one, will say
“Court rise” which indicates that you should stand up. You should bow to the judge when the judge bows. Only upon the judge taking his
seat will you cease standing, meaning that only after the judge takes his seat would you be allowed to do the same. Leading counsel for the
appellant will then prepare to deliver his speech, and when the judge indicates that he is ready, the leading counsel for the appellant should
start his speech delivery.

Rehearse the opening lines

The responsibility of introducing the counsel for both parties to the judge and for briefly outlining the facts of the case lies with the leading
counsel for the appellant. An example of an opening speech by the lead appellant would be:

“May it please your Lordship, my name is Mr/ Miss … and, together with my learned co-counsel Mr/ Miss … I appear
for the Appellant. My learned friends Mr/ Miss … and Mr/ Miss … appear for the Respondent. The facts of the case
before the court today are as follows…”

“Dengan izin Yang Arif, nama saya Encik/ Cik … dan, bersama dengan saya rakan bijaksana peguam kedua Encik/ Cik … Saya
mewakili perayu. Rakan bijaksana saya Encik/ Cik … dan Encik/ Cik … mewakili responden. Fakta dihadapan mahkamah hari ini
adalah seperti berikut …”

Introducing legal issues at stake may be done after the facts have been recited:

“My Lord, in the instant case, there are two grounds of appeal. First, the issue whether …; and secondly, the issue
whether … My Lord, I shall be dealing with the first ground of appeal and my learned counsel co-counsel will be dealing
with the second ground of appeal.”

“Yang Arif, untuk kes hari ini, terdapat dua alasan rayuan. Pertama samaada …; dan isu kedua ialah samaada … Yang
Arif saya akan menghujahkan alasan rayuan yang pertama dan rakan bijaksana saya, peguam kedua akan
menghujahkan alasan rayuan kedua.”

It is also possible to state in order various propositions of law, which form the body of your submission to the court. It can be something that
goes like this:

“It will be submitted that the appeal should be allowed/ dismissed on the grounds that … This submission relies on three
propositions, which I shall deal with in turn. They are, first, that …; second, that …; and finally, that …”

“ Adalah dihujahkan bahawa rayuan ini hendaklah dibenarkan/ ditolak atas alasan –alasan berikut … Hujahan ini
bergantung pada tiga pernyataan, yang mana saya akan hujahkan selepas ini. Hujahan –hujahan tersebut adalah,
pertama, …; kedua …; dan ketiga/ terakhir, …”

It is important to have an opening fulfilling the order and elements stated above because it makes it easier for the judge to know which
issues you are intending to leave until later in your speech. Such opening like this enables the judge to grasp the bird-eye-view of your
submissions. This in turn will limit interruptions from the judge asking you about one of those issues until you have reached the point
whereby you intended to deal with that particular matter.

With the introduction done by the lead counsel for the appellant, there is no need for the subsequent counsel to reintroduce himself/herself or
to repeat the facts of the case, thus their opening speeches would be something like:

“If it pleases your Lordship, my name is … and I represent the Respondent together with my learned co-counsel Mr/ Miss
…”

“ Dengan izin Yang Arif, nama saya … dan saya mewakili responden bersama dengan rakan bijaksana saya peguam
kedua Mr/ Miss …”

“If it pleases your Lordship, my name is … and I am continuing the case for the Appellant (Respondent).”

“ Dengan izin Yang Arif, nama saya … dan saya akan menyambung kes perayu (responden)”

Rehearse the closing lines

Preparing closing sentence would come in handy in circumstances whereby you are thrown off your argument that you cannot carry on.
Delivering good closing sentence will be more useful than simply mumbling and sitting down embarrassed. Something as simple as:

“For the reasons I have given I would ask that this appeal be allowed/ dismissed”

“ Dengan alasan-alasan yang telah diberikan saya memohon agar rayuan ini dibenarkan/ ditolak”

“In conclusion, I would like to invite your Lordship to hold that …, and accordingly to reverse/ uphold the decision of …
and to allow/ reject this appeal. My Lord, unless your Lordship has any further questions, that concludes my
submissions.”

“ Kesimpulannya, Saya ingin menarik perhatian Yang Arif untuk menyatakan bahawa …, dan seterusnya untuk menarik/
mengekalkan keputusan … dan membenarkan / menolak rayuan ini. Yang Arif, sekiranya Yang Arif tidak mempunyai apa- apa
soalam, saya menamatkan hujahan saya/ tidak mempunyai hujahan lagi.”

Mind your language

It must always come to the mind that the language of a courtroom is different from that used in everyday speech. Therefore you should try
and formulate phrases as you might expect a barrister or judge to say them. Informal phrases, such as “Okay”, “Yeah” and “All right” are
not acceptable. If you are corrected by the judge on the interpretation of a case, the appropriate response would be something like “I am
grateful for your Lordship's assistance” rather than “OK. Ta” or “OK. Thanks”.

Hasty speech often amounts to missing out points thus it should be made a habit to speak slowly because you can form your thoughts and
come out with something different from how you might ordinarily respond.

It is an advocate’s job to give arguments based on legal authorities to aid the judge in making decisions. Therefore, in your speech you are
merely restating the opinion of others and not giving your own opinion. This is due to the fact that the opinion of the advocate is irrelevant
for the court to make its decision. As such, you should never tell the judge what you think, never suppose or even suggest. You must merely
submit humbly that the judge should adopt your interpretation of the authorities given. Phrases like “I think …” or “In my opinion…”
should never be uttered. Therefore the phrase “My Lord/Lady, I submit that”, “I submit …” or “It is my submission that …” should occur
fairly frequently in a good moot speech.

( “Yang Arif, saya berhujah bahawa”/ “Hujahan saya adalah seperti berikut)

The speech should also give the full citation of a case as soon as it is mentioned, and the advocate should always ask the judge if he/she
would like a summary of the facts of the case. For example:
 “A further authority which supports this is the case of Smith and Jones which can be found in the second volume of the
1942 Weekly Law Reports at page 132. Would your Lordship like a summary of the facts of the case?”

“ Otoriti seterusnya yang menyokong hujahan ini adalah kes Smith dan Jones yang boleh dirujuk dalam volume kedua
1942 weekly Law Reports di muka surat 132. Adakah Yang Arif memerlukan ringkasan fakta kes tersebut?”

Always ask the judge(s) for permission

Asking the judges’ permission at various stages of the speech is also an act of professionalism:

“With your Lordship's permission I would like now to...”

“May it please your Lordship…”
“If it pleases your Ladyship…”

“ Dengan izin Yang Arif saya ingin…”

“Dengan Izin Yang Arif… “
“Jika diizinkan Yang Arif…”

Always be reminded too that your role is to assist the judges in their decision-making. What you say and do is for the judges' benefit, so it is
your duty to make sure that they are following your argument. Allow them time to find a citation, unless they indicate you should go on.
Interact with the judge by talking to them, and not at them.

Rebuttal and Surrebuttal

Each Team may reserve up to 3 minutes for rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a courtesy to the judges, Teams should announce whether they intend
to reserve time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral argument, and how much time they intend to reserve. Nonetheless, it
should be noted that mere failure to announce would not waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the
rebuttal or surrebuttal. The Team need not indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible Team members will deliver
rebuttal or surrebuttal.

As the Court’s last impression, rebuttal or surrebuttal can be very potent if done well, or devastating if not. Generally, you should use
rebuttal or surrebuttal time only if you have a point to make that will directly contest a point made by your opponent. If there is none, it is
sometimes more strategic to waive rebuttal or surrebuttal altogether.

Rebuttal
The Appellant is given the opportunity to refute the Respondent’s case through rebuttal after each side has completed its presentation of the
case. The rebuttal serves as ground allowing you to address your opponent’s arguments and to set the record straight. Rebuttal is to be
differentiated from rearguing your case, summarising your points, or even discussing the points that you failed to make in your main
presentation. However, the scope of the Appellant’s rebuttal is limited to responding to the Respondent's primary oral pleadings – the
Appellant must not argue points, which the Respondent has not attempted to make.

Surrebuttal
The sole purpose of surrebuttal is to refute the Appellant’s rebuttal. Hence, the scope of the Respondent's surrebuttal is limited to responding
to the Applicant's rebuttal. If the Applicant waives rebuttal, Respondent may not appear for surrebuttal.

NOTE: Although judges are admonished to enforce the limits on the scope of rebuttal and surrebuttal, and may take a violation of this Rule
into account in evaluating an oralist's performance, there is no discretionary or non-discretionary penalty for exceeding scope of rebuttal or
surrebuttal.

The Pace

Your submissions should be clear and precise. Speaking slowly and fluently enables the judge to understand better what you are saying. You
must also always keep eye contact with the judge to watch for any signals from him or her. In times of uncertainty, do ask: “My Lord, may I
continue?”

Time

Keeping an eye on the clock is a must. Depending on the mooting rules that apply, the following may be excluded from the timing of the
speech: quotation from cases, answers to judicial questions, and summarizing of the facts of the case (lead Appellant’s speech). It is
advisable – but not always realistic – to rehearse and time your speech in full before the moot.

E. Dealing with Judicial Questions

It is not uncommon for the judge to ask questions when you are presenting your case. So you should always be prepared to be interrupted at
any moment even in between mid-sentence. You should always try to answer questions from the judge as and when they are asked. Do not
tell the judge that you will get to it later – this will usually annoy the judge. Depending on the mooting rules that apply, answering questions
may not be included in the speech timing, giving you plenty of chance to give the judge a full answer without worrying about the clock.

Questions from the bench come in a variety of forms, an array of questions ranging from the straightforward to the difficult, from the
whimsical to the subtle. You should not be unnerved or surprised by questions posed by the bench; instead you should welcome these
questions as this is a sign that the judge or judges are interested in the case and try to answer the questions with the best of their abilities and
knowledge. Eye contact is very important when explaining or replying to the particular judge’s questions, this shows confidence and surety
in your answers, giving them the impression that you know what you are saying.

Appear pleased when answering the court would thus give the impression that you welcome the question and are only too happy to be of
help to the court. Note that answers should be clear, straightforward and to the point, limiting to 1-2 short, well thought-out sentences. Long-
winded or evasive answers may be perceived as a weakness or deception.

If the judge has defeated your argument, then admit it. You could say something like:

“Yes. I am grateful to your Lordship.”

“ Ya. Saya menghargainya Yang Arif”

“I am much obliged my lord.”

“Terima Kasih Yang Arif”

However, if you feel the judge has misunderstood the point, then it is often worth persisting, by referring the judge again to the relevant
authorities and restating your point. Some judges like to test whether the mooters can stick to their guns under pressure. Justify yourself by
using words or phrases such as:

“With all due respect, my lord…,”

“Degan segala hormatnya Yang Arif”

“I can see the force of your Lordship’s argument, but it is nevertheless my respectful submission that …”

“Saya jelas dengan alasan yang dikemukakan Yang Arif, walaubagaimanapun saya dengan rendah diri berhujah bahawa …”

If you cannot answer a question, say so. A response such as: “My Lord, I am unable to assist on that point, since I have not read the
relevant authority” will often be sufficient, but be prepared for a judicial rebuke!

If you do not understand the questions, politely ask the judge asking the question to repeat it or rephrase it such as:

“I should be obliged if your Lordship could clarify that questions.”

“ Saya amat berterima kasih/ menghargai sekiranya yang Arif dapat menerangkan/ menjelaskan persoalan tersebut.”

“I am having a little difficulty following your Lordship’s meaning.”

“ Saya menghadapi kesukaran memahami maksud alasan Yang Arif / Saya kurang faham dengan maksud / alasan yang Arif

Responses to avoid:

“With the greatest respect Your Honour, that is a very strange question.”
“I’ll be getting to that Your Honour.”
“Is that a statement or a question?”
“Now where was I before I was interrupted?”

Last but not least, you should never interrupt the judge when you are being asked questions, but let them interrupt you!

F. Citing Authorities

When presenting cases to the court, arguments should be supported with relevant authorities. Methods on citing various authorities will be
discussed below.

1) Law reports
 It is usual to cite the cases in full.
Example for civil cases:
Valliapa v Kersamal [1951] MLJ 117
“The (Federal Court) case of Valliapa and Kersamal, as reported in volume one of the Malaysian Law Journal for 1951 at page
117.”

Example for criminal cases:

R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341
“The (House of Lords) case of the Crown (or Regina) against Caldwell, as reported in the Appeal Cases reports for 1982 at page
341.”

Note that in civil matters “v” is referred to as “and” whereas in criminal cases, it is referred to as “against”. Strictly never use
Americanism “versus”.

It is polite to ask the judge if any clarification on the facts of the case is needed by them. This saves time and avoids boring the judges
by repeating cases, which the judges are already familiar with. After giving the full citation, you should ask:

“Are your lordship familiar with the facts of this case?”

“Adakah Yang Arif biasa dengan /memerlukan/ memahami fakta kes ini?”

When referring to a particular line of passage in a case in your Bundle of Authorities, the best way of communicating to the judge
exactly where you wish him/her to look is by stating the relevant line or section reference given in your Bundle. Example:

“I refer to the case of (name and full citation) which is to be found at page… of the Appellant’s Bundle of Authorities. I refer to
(your pagination) page… I invite your Lordship’s attention paragraph A, right hand column where his Lordship Mr. Justice...
observed as follows…”

“Saya merujuk kepada kes ( nama dan citation penuh) yang boleh dirujuk di muka surat… ikatan otoriti perayu. Saya merujuk kepada
( muka surat yang ditandakan)… saya ingin menarik perhatian yang Arif kepada perenggan A, disebelah/ dibahagian kanan dimana
yang Arif Hakim.. menyatakan seperti berikut…”

2) Other materials
When quoting from textbooks state the title of the book, the author, the edition, the year, and the page and line in reference in the
respective order shown.

When quoting from journals, state the title of the journal, the author of the article, the year, the volume, and the page and any line in
reference.

Referring to judges when citing cases

Malaysian judges are to be referred to by their full titles. Examples:

“Mr. Justice Dato’ James Foong”
“The Chief Justice, Tun Yusop bin Manik”
“Yang Arif Dato’ V.C. George”

If the judge you are referring to has been elevated to a higher position since giving the judgment you are about to cite, you should refer to
him as
“Judicial Commissioner Dato’ James Foong, as he then was.”

For English judges, there are two classes of appellant judges in England. Firstly, those who obtain their position by peerage like the Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary. Secondly judges who do not have peerage like Lord Justice of Appeal (LJ). Examples:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ – Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Lord Chief

Justice
Lord Steyn – Lord Steyn
Lord Irvine of Lairg LC – Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Lord Chancellor
Lord Wolfe MR – Lord Wolfe, the Master of the Rolls
Lord Slynn of Hadley – Lord Slynn of Hadley
Sir Donald Nicholls VC – Sir Donald Nicholls, the Vice Chancellor
Appearing and Performing
GENERAL FLOW OF PROCEEDINGS IN COURT

1. Judge enters the courtroom; bailiff announces the opening of the moot court.

2. First counsel for the Appellant stands before the court to introduce counsel for both parties and presents Appellant’s first
argument.
 Outlines briefly the points of law on which the Appellant’s case is based, indicating which are to be discussed by his/her
co-counsel;
 Offers to provide a short summary of the facts of the case;
 Deals with the points if law mentioned to the judge(s);
 Concludes

3. Second counsel for the Appellant stands before the court and presents Appellant’s second argument.
 Outlines the points to be covered in his or her speech;
 Deals with the points mentioned to the judge(s);
 Concludes with a summary of the entire arguments for the Appellant’s case

4. First counsel for the Respondent stands before the court and presents Respondent’s first argument.
 Outlines briefly the points of law on which the Respondent’s case is based, indicating which of these are to be discussed by
him/her, and which are to be discussed by the second counsel;
 Does not need to provide another summary of the facts of the case, but should mention those facts which are in dispute, or
those which have been omitted or misrepresented by the Appellant;
 Responds to points made by his/her opponents insofar as these have directly contradicted their own submissions;
 Deals with the points of law mentioned to the judge(s);
 Concludes

5. Second counsel for the Respondent stands before the court and presents Respondent’s second argument.
 Responds to point made by Appellant;
 Outlines own submissions and presents them;
 Concludes with a summary of the entire arguments for the Respondent’s case

6. Counsel for the Appellant stands before the court and presents rebuttal.
 Responds to the Respondent’s claim;
 Must not argue points, which the Respondent has not attempted to make.

7. Counsel for the Respondent stands before the court and presents surrebuttal.
 Responds only to the Appellant’s rebuttal;
 Must not responds to points made by the Appellant in the main pleading, which have not been responded in the previous
pleading;
 If the Appellant waives rebuttal, Respondent may not appear for surrebuttal

8. Judge(s) confirms completion of oral pleadings; bailiff announces the adjournment of the court and judge(s) leaves the
courtroom.
SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

The following is a sample script of the formalities observed during oral submissions. Note however that the phraseology used is merely
illustrative, and may be varied as appropriate.

PRILIMINARIES
BAILIFF : “All rise.”

(Presiding judge bangs the gavel, at which the judge and all people in the courtroom are seated.)

REGISTRAR : “The case before the Court is the matter of Wan Arfah v Menteri Hal
Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia. The Appellant and the Respondent are each allocated 45 minutes to present their
pleadings.”

ORAL PRESENTATION
I. Appellant
Appellant speaks first inasmuch as the burden of proof lies with their side.

A. Introducing your side and your opponents

Appellant 1 : (stands from his/her seat)

“May it please the court/ If it pleases the court. My name is …, appearing for the Appellant …, together with my co-counsel … (Co-
counsel stands up as his/her name is being mentioned while the leader for the Appellant takes his/her seat. Co-counsel then takes his/her
seat as leading counsel for the Appellant proceeds to speak). The Respondent is represented by my learned friends Mr/Miss … and
Mr/Miss …”

B. Introducing your case

Your initial introduction of the case to the court should combine the necessary facts and legal analysis to describe the nature of the case and
enable the judges to focus their experience and understanding on specific issues presented. State the question concisely and present it so as
to include your core theory.

“My Lord(s), this is an application for the writ of habeas corpus under section 25 of the Court of Judicature Act. Appellant Wan Arfah
seeks to establish that her detention under section 8 of the Internal Security Act is unlawful and violates the Federal Constitution and of
the rights of the Appellant.”

C. Introducing your submissions

Give the court an overview of what you and your co-counsel will say. This (i) lets he court know where you are going, and (ii) means that
you will not have to deal with questions on matters which your co-counsel was intending to address.

“My Lord(s), I will submit the first two submissions: first, that … and second, that … My co-counsel … will in turn discuss our last two
submissions: that … and that …”

D. Discussing the facts

You can proceed to discuss the facts of the case:

“My Lord(s), the facts of this case are not in dispute … (give brief summary of facts)”

You can ask the court whether they would still like to hear a discussion of the facts of the case:

“May I assume that your Lordship(s) is familiar with the facts of the case?” (If the judge(s) nods yes, then you no longer need to
elaborate. If conversely he says “no” or ask you to elaborate, then present a brief summary of the facts.)

E. Proceeding to substantive argument

After having given the facts, you can now proceed to substantive argument:

“If your Lordship(s) has no preliminary questions, I shall proceed to my first submission.” (Proceed to discuss, unless interrupted by
question)

You should follow this pattern as you move through your submissions.

“With your Lordship’(s) permission, I shall now proceed to my second submission.” (And so on, until the end of your presentation)

F. Responding to questions

When responding to questions, maintain a deferential tone and give a direct answer.
 “My Lord(s), we submit that…”

“Yes, my Lord(s), that is indeed the case.” (Used if the question is answerable by a simple yes or no)

“That is an interesting issue, my Lord(s), and I would like to make three main points in reply…” ( Used if it is necessary to make a
lengthy reply to a question)

“With all due respect, my Lord(s)…” (To be used if you disagree with the judge’s statements or comments)

G. Finishing your submissions

Once you have finished your submissions or run out of time, whichever comes first, summarize your arguments very briefly and sit down.
Let the judge(s) know you are going to finish so that he can fire off any last questions. Maintain eye contact with the judge(s) until he nods
to let you know you can sit down.

“With your Lordship’(s) permission, I would now like to summarize my arguments briefly.” (Summarize)

“If your Lordship(s) has no further questions, that concludes my submissions.”

Appellant 2

Appellant 2 observes similar formalities as those observed by Appellant 1:

Appellant 2: (stands up)

“My Lord(s), my learned co-counsel has already discussed with you (list topics already covered). I shall now proceed to discuss (outline
presentation briefly).”

“If your Lordship(s) has no preliminary questions, I shall proceed to my first submission…” (Proceed to discuss, unless interrupted by
question)

“With your Lordship’(s) permission, I shall now proceed to my second submission…” (And so on, until the end of your presentation)

“My Lord(s), I would now like to summarize Appellant’s case (summarize).”

II. Respondent
Although the general rules apply to the arguments of both Appellant and Respondent, the Respondent is required to exercise even more
flexibility than Appellant does, as Respondent must make an affirmative case for their side while rebutting Appellant’s case in the process.

A. Introducing your submissions

Respondent 1 introduces their case in much the same way as the Appellant:

Respondent 1: (stands up)

“My Lord(s), I shall be making three main points (list them briefly), while my co-counsel… will be discussing the issue/s of (list
briefly).”

However, before going into the presentation, Respondent 1 (ideally) rebuts the points already made by the Appellant in their affirmative
presentation.

“My Lord(s), before I begin my argument, I would like to address a few points that were brought up during the Appellant’s
submission…”
B. Discussing the facts

An extensive discussion of the facts is no longer necessary since Appellant 1 has already done that. However, if certain facts are in dispute,
Respondent 1 must necessarily raise these facts before the court.

C. Proceeding to substantive argument

The approach for proceeding to substantive argument and moving through succeeding submissions is the same as that of the Appellant:

“If your Lordship(s) has no preliminary questions, I shall proceed to my first submission.” (Proceed to discuss, unless interrupted by
question)

“With your Lordship’(s) permission, I shall now proceed to my second submission.” (And so on, until the end of your presentation)

D. Responding to questions

With respect to answering the bench’s questions, the same rules apply to both Appellant and Respondent.

E. Finishing your submissions

The approach for concluding one’s submissions is the same as that of Appellant 1:
 “My Lord(s), I would now like to summarize my arguments briefly (summarize).”

“If your Lordship(s) has no further questions, that concludes my submissions.”

Respondent 2

The formalities observed by Respondent 2 are the same as those of Appellant 2.

III. REBUTTAL
Rebuttal is to be delivered by either the counsel or the co-counsel for the Appellant, and usually begins with the following statement:

“My Lord(s), I have five quick points which I would like to address from my opponent’s arguments…”

IV. SURREBUTTAL
Surrebuttal is to be delivered by either the counsel or the co-counsel for the Respondent, and may be expressed in a similar way as the
Rebuttal.