Sexual assault and universities

you're misunderstanding tort...no such thing as a duty of care in negligence. Negligence usually means a personal injury & breach of duty/ causation by the tortfeasor.

Everyone owes a duty but it does not mean that a duty gives rise to negligence.

I don't discuss that. I prefer to conduct legal debates based on the quality of the argument, not the credentials of the opposing sides. I'm not aware of any accepted legal tradition since Theodosius II which has accorded value to legal arguments on the basis of the esteem in which its proponents are held.



I expected this is what you were going to cite for the comment 'In bankruptcy people lose their homes when it's not their debt'. I will have to respectfully suggest, however, that you have misunderstood how the s335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 works. s335A is incorporated into the law of coownership trusts of property through s15 TLATA 1996, providing different rules governing the court's discretion to grant sale in the case of a dispute between the co-owners. It arises in the following model scenario. X and Y co-owner a house. Y takes out a loan secured against his share in the house. He fails to repay, and the lender seeks to exercise their charge through obtaining sale of the property. X, however, wants to keep the property. The court is therefore asked to determine whether sale should be ordered or not, which is when the s15 discretion, guided by s335A, operates. Assuming that they have order sale, this does not entail any loss to X. Although the house will be sold, so they will lose their share in the title to the freehold/leasehold, that share will be substituted for the equivalent proportion of the proceeds of sale. Therefore, they do not suffer any loss in fact: they keep the exact same value.

Such reasoning is not, therefore, analogous to imposing liability on relatives for A's tort, for two reasons:
(1) there is no legal mechanism for doing so. TLATA 1996 and IA 1986 are statutes limited to co-ownership trusts over real property. In no way can they, therefore, extend to tort.
(2) by simply requiring A's relatives to pay the damage, you make them incur a loss, as they lose money to meet the liability. That is materially distinct from the operation of the IA1986, where, as demonstrated above, X does not suffer any loss.

Could you please cite any which are applicable to the present debate rather than just asserting this then?



....which is the correct form since I have cited cases from before neutral citations were introduced in 2001. I have published in and edited academic legal journals in the past, so I know correct citation form.

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf
(see pp 13-14)



Seeing as you have not cited any cases to the contrary, the rank of the authority seems to be of little importance. However, if you would still like to know, Smith v Littlewoods is ratio by the House of Lords.

s.335A relates to the trustee's power - not the mortgagee's power. The mortgagee's power is generally law of property act but based off an estate contract clause and therein breach.

You demonstrate a naïve thinking approach..in the real world the official receiver will either put a charge on a property and is likely to get a court under via s.14, ToLATA 1996. A bank will also easily be able to get an order for possession, with a view to sale under its LPA statutory powers. The bank (mortgagee) already has charge over the property as such - the property is its security.

Am not doing your homework, it's your job to research the exceptions.

I actually view tort as inconsequential actually...just ambulance chasers

It's the trustee's power at first instance, but when s335A is being applied it is exercised by the court under s14 TLATA. This can be achieved by the mortgagee's application as the mortgagee (with a Charge by way of Legal Mortgage under s87 LPA1925) is effectively a lessee, so is able to bring an application for a court order under s14 as they have '...an interest in property subject to a trust of land...'.



Thank you for accusing me of naïvety. I don't like ad hominem - I didn't comment after you request to find out my level of qualifications, but now I'll say that if I read a third, I will retire from this debate.

I'm not sure what this comment adds, as it confirms what I was saying.

So instead of you proving your proposition, the burden is on me to establish it for you? I think a university, a court or anyone else would find this suggestion rather unsatisfactory.

address my point that a lender would easily get a possession order...and trustee/ official receiver a charge. You are affected by credentials hence 'third'...universities just produce for the economy...notwithstanding institutional elitism etc

that's my point, the loss is the family home and the family being made homeless. You seem to have a generous view of loss. Isn't that suffering enough.

First you were saying that bankrupts had rights to save their home

then you're accepting that it's ok to lose the family home as long as they have the proceeds

if one were to have half of the proceeds does that buy half of a house

notwithstanding the property will be auctioned and therein any equity will be lost.

of course it does not especially against the senior police officer...but this new enquiry into Hillsborough may change the original position.

I originally said that bankrupt's families suffer indirectly by losing their family home. You said this wasn't the case under Insolvency Act c/o ToLATA (Trust of Land). I then pointed out to you the reality is that OR/ Trustee/ Mortgagees powers will likely result in the loss of the family home in one way or another, whether through land charge or possession/ sale orders.

Rather than addressing these points you gravitated to an almost pro bank/ OR stance.