Toby Chandler talks more about their experiences in the competition:

Alastair Prince and I have just concluded our participation in the Landmark Chambers National Property Moot, having reached the semi-finals. It was an enjoyable and informative experience.

For the first round, we attended a day long event at the chambers. As well as the moot, this involved a property law workshop and a Q&A about a pupillage at Landmark. The workshop revolved around property and human rights following McDonald v McDonald, which ruled human rights were of no application in private property claims. We considered a hypothetical problem about the rights Catalonian independence protestors would have when occupying a building.

The Q&A explained the structure of the application process and provided some guidance as to the challenges and pitfalls of pupillage. The day concluded with a drinks reception in which we met a number of barristers, and other competitors. 

The moot itself, in which we were paired against Nottingham, involved a question of statutory interpretation. Could someone who had committed a riot prior to the start of a tenancy, be evicted based on the past offence? Our client had been involved in the ‘Brexit Riots’, and was faced with losing the flat he’d subsequently moved into. The problem was topical and challenging, and represents how mooting can support an understanding of topics outside of the curriculum at university.

The second round, against Winchester, concerned a commercial property question currently on appeal to the Supreme Court. In S Franses Ltd v Cavendish Hotel Ltd several issues are currently being considered. For our purposes, the question was whether a landlord could undertake structural work on a property purely to allow them to seek possession. Our client, Sydney Barrett was subject to a similar action by Darkside properties. This Pink Floyd themed problem provided an insight into some of the modern issues in property law.

The semi-finals were hosted by Cambridge University. Again, the problem concerned a difficult issue, whether oral boundary agreements are binding on third party purchasers. Our clients, Butler and Osborne (this problem was Black Sabbath themed) had lied to obtain an additional portion of land. We were asked whether the case law holding that agreements were binding should be overruled and whether the law should, otherwise, be extended to unregistered land. While we were unsuccessful in this round, it was closely fought and very enjoyable.

The barristers at Landmark were impeccable judges in every round. Moots in this kind of setting really push your legal understanding. We would encourage anyone interested in a career at the bar, or simply looking to boost their skills and CV, to get involved.