In the current proceedings before the High Court:

• the Plaintiffs are the State of New South Wales and Sydney Private Hospital Pty Ltd; and

• the Defendant is Cathy Free.

As required by Rule 22, each team must prepare one set of written submissions on behalf of the Plaintiffs and one set on behalf of the Defendant.

During the preliminary rounds, competitors will represent both sides twice.

When appearing for the Plaintiffs, competitors are acting on behalf of both the State of New South Wales and Sydney Private Hospital Pty Ltd jointly.

The error in the original problem question has been rectified. Please use the most updated problem question (dated 15.09.26) at gibbsanu.com.

Additional Note:

To be clear: in question 1, the reference to Cathy Free as the Plaintiff and NSW & SPH as the Respondents is correct. 

As Justice Walker confirmed with the Convenor, that proceeding (Cathy Free v NSW & SPH), with those parties, is still on foot. The question is whether it can be properly brought in the Supreme Court of Victoria. That question is being dealt with as a proceeding in the High Court’s original jurisdiction (which is the moot proceeding).

This was the same approach, for instance, taken in XYZ v The Commonwealth. 

Yes.

How you allocate issues between Senior and Junior counsel is a decision for you and your team.

The speaking order will be as follows (unless your judge(s) say otherwise):

1. Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs

2. Junior Counsel for the Plaintiffs

3. Senior Counsel for the Defendant

4. Junior Counsel for the Respondent

Yes.

The problem question should be taken as drafted. Parties are reminded to confine their factual analysis and discussion of issues in their submissions to matters relevant to the reserved questions.

Competitors may assume that leave to re-open any case has been granted, but should carefully consider whether relying on such leave is required for their argument.

As is typical in mooting, competitors should consider whether the facts of the present case can be distinguished from those in previous decisions.

Parties are reminded to confine their factual analysis and discussion of issues in their submissions to matters relevant to the stated questions.

Parties may raise any arguments they consider appropriate.

Parties are reminded to confine their factual analysis and discussion of issues in their submissions to matters relevant to the stated questions.