This week our Asian Cultures Group partnered with Victoria University of Wellington's Asian Law Students Association (ALSA) to host an inaugural Social Justice Moot - a mock law trial designed to highlight cultural understanding as a way to supplement more traditional legal reasoning.

Thirty students competed in the preliminary, semi-final and final rounds of the litigation contest - or moot - which was held across three days, culminating in the finals at the historic Old High Court in Wellington. The moot ran as a three-panel Court of Appeal. It was presided over by former Judge Margaret Lee, New Zealand's first Asian judge.

Simpson Grierson Senior Associate, Nick Chapman and Event Coordinator and Simpson Grierson Solicitor, Amarind Eng, also sat on the bench.

Amarind says: “The Social Justice Moot is one way of ensuring that the role of culture is front of mind for students as they progress through their studies and into their careers.

“In practice, we are seeing cultural competency become increasingly important - even in commercial law settings; for example, the Supreme Court’s decision in Deng v Zheng stated that parties’ cultural backgrounds are relevant to the interpretation of contracts.

"As a leading law firm, we are consciously attuned to these subtle changes in law,” says Amarind.

About the Social Justice Moot (SJM)

Unlike an ordinary moot, the focus of the SJM was on arguments beyond the letter of the law. Contestants were encouraged to bring their own life experiences, cultural understandings and wider reading to supplement more traditional legal approaches to reasoning in the problem scenario. This initiative was driven by Simpson Grierson’s Asian Cultures Group which identified the need to explore greater cultural competency in litigation in New Zealand.

Fictitious fact scenario

The SJM's fictitious scenario that was given to students to debate, involved a party of an Islamic background (the Khans) bringing a claim against restaurant owners (the Lees) for an alleged breach of contract. The Lees were contracted to cater the Khans’ wedding, and provided non-halal food for the event. The Khans contended that contractual terms relating to delivery of "relevantly selected food" of the "highest quality" implied a halal requirement, whereas the Lees submitted they, in applying the 'reasonable person test' to interpreting the contract, delivered precisely the food that was contracted. The point of this scenario was to give students a platform to argue about a fact scenario that could reflect their own cultural backgrounds and understandings.

This fact scenario is important because mooting has traditionally been an opportunity to argue about law in isolation. However, with increasing diversity of people in the community and in law, legal arguments must necessarily evolve to account for their cultural context, especially in considering any 'reasonable person' principles.

Judges’ feedback

All competitors impressed the judging panels. The submissions made brought out the creativity of competitors, fusing a mix of cultural and legal arguments to the Moot Court of Appeal.

President of the Asian Law Students Association at Victoria University of Wellington, Helen He says of the event: “Cultural competency is a crucial skill for students developing a career in law.

“Not everyone comes from the same cultural background, so understanding and navigating these different perspectives results in a well-informed lawyer who can represent and advocate for their clients to the best of their abilities.”

Winners

Victoria University law students Shajan Mahinay-Thomas and Hannah Bautista, representing the appellants, won with their teamwork and exceptional mooting style. The judges were also impressed by the runners up, Cindy Xiong and Ethan Rogacion, for their ability to weave together their approach to culture in law against the backdrop of English common law principles.

Shajan says of the event: "We received valuable advice on our mooting skills as we moved through the three rounds. It was special moment to moot in front of the incredible former Judge Margaret Lee as well as litigators from Simpson Grierson: Amarind Eng and Nick Chapman."

Hannah says: “We competed in three exhilarating rounds switching sides, and got to argue the importance of cultural competency in the Aotearoa legal setting.

“In particular, how courts should recognise and place weight on such arguments to highlight NZ’s increasing diversity while upholding the orthodox rules of law.

I really enjoyed arguing niche and creative factual points, rather than strictly legal rules."