Brian Eggleston, the well-known civil engineering arbitrator and author of commentaries on ICE contracts, led this event, supported by a cast of newly qualified barristers, members and Institute HQ personnel. Nearly thirty aspiring panel members were told that, whilst the Institute had not yet confirmed its policy, this event was seen as a pilot exercise to assess the validity of it as a way of overcoming the present dearth of hearings that is an obstacle to chartered status. There were said to be 262 chartered arbitrators, not all of whom take many hearings, trying to support over 2000 fellows who were estimated to be trying to qualify.

We were invited to make of the event what we wished, and were advised that any orders for directions, awards and hearing notes we chose to prepare and submit could be used in support of our applications to go on the panel. Clearly, the perceived success or otherwise of the event will have a bearing on how much weight the selection committee gives to such material.

Brian and his team had devised a realistic scenario about a dispute between furniture manufacturers, including inadequate evidence, a witness who didn't show up and a deliberate typographical error to trap an unsuspecting advocate. Not surprisingly, Brian played the part of the arbitrator and the barristers were the counsel for the parties, whilst the witnesses were portrayed by members of the Institute. One "witness" in particular should have won an Oscar for her convincing portrayal of a forthright Yorkshire manageress.

The day started with an interlocutory hearing which resulted in some agreement by the parties but in no orders for disclosure made by the arbitrator. The hearing itself was in two parts, a separate hearing on costs having been requested by the parties. We thus had the opportunity to produce orders for directions, an interim award and a final one. Notwithstanding any use of these documents for panel purposes, Brian undertook to review any submitted and return them with comments.

The day was the first of two consecutive sessions when the scenario was played out, and as well as being good experience it was also good fun. The only shadow over the proceedings was that Ian Menzies had been the original organiser, and the opportunity was of course taken to recognise the contribution he made to the development of many careers. It goes without saying that I hope the pilot is seen as a success by the powers-that-be as well as by the participants. Even if it is decided not to give the papers any credence as part of submissions for panel membership, the day (and the very reasonable cost) will have been worthwhile. If you are an aspirant, and/or are looking for practical experience, I recommend that you keep an eye out for the adverts for similar mock hearings.