Students may apply for course credit for participation in mooting competitions in accordance with the policy of the School of Law Teaching and Learning Committee set out below.

Applications should cover all points set out under the Applications for Course Credit tab below and must include the student’s full name and their eight digit student number. Students on the same team may submit a joint application.

Submit completed applications to mooting@law.uq.edu.au.

Students participating in the following mooting competitions will be automatically eligible for 2# of course credit:

  • Philip C Jessup International Law Moot
  • International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot
  • Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot

Students participating in other mooting competitions may submit a written request to the Deputy Dean Academic or nominee for #2 of course credit. 

Students are eligible for a maximum of four units of course credit relating to mooting (i.e. two moots). An exemption may be granted in exceptional circumstances by the Head of School. 

The written request must include the following information:

  • A description of the depth and breadth of learning undertaken by the students as a result of participating in the competition.
  • A description of the level of academic supervision of the students.
  • Endorsement by the academic supervisor or coach.
  • A description of the process by which mooting teams are selected.
  • Evidence of the level of prestige of the competition, e.g. the number of entrants, the number and quality of other universities participating in the competition, and the identities of the judges.
  • A description of the workload associated with participation in the competition, including the length of written submissions.
  • A description of the judging process.

In assessing eligibility for course credit for participation in a mooting competition, the Teaching and Learning Committee will have regard to the following:

  • The extent to which the depth and breadth of learning undertaken by the students equates to that associated with a typical #2 law course.
  • The degree to which participation in the mooting competition was promoted to and made available to all law students.
  • Whether the mooting teams were selected on the basis of merit.
  • The level of academic supervision of the students.
  • The workload associated with participation in the competition.
  • The level of prestige of the competition.
  • The rigour of the judging process.
  • Any overlap between (1) the work done by students to participate in the competition and (2) the content of other law courses or other mooting competitions in which the student has already participated and for which they have already received credit. (In determining the degree to which any overlap is acceptable the Teaching and Learning Committee will be guided by the standard process of assessing incompatibility between two courses.)

The Teaching and Learning Committee may elect to award the credit in a semester following the semester in which the mooting competition takes place.
 

Students entitled to course credit under sections 1 or 2 will be graded by the supervisor using the standard grading scale. 

In awarding a grade the supervisor will have regard to the following:

  • The quality of research undertaken by the students as evidenced by the written submissions.
  • The quality of oral advocacy demonstrated by the students during practice moots, as evidenced by feedback from those judging the practice moots.
  • The quality of written work by the students during the competition as evidenced by feedback from the formal moot judges regarding the written component of the mooting competition.
  • The quality of oral advocacy demonstrated by the students during the competition as evidenced by feedback from the formal moot judges regarding the oral component of the mooting competition.
  • The supervisor’s assessment of the overall quality of the performance of the students during the mooting competition including their capacity to work effectively as a team.

As a general rule a common mark should be awarded to each team member based on the performance of the team as a whole.  However, the supervisor may award individual marks if they deem it more suitable.