As part of the co-curricular programme at Kent Law School, students have been learning the skills of legal argument and oral communication. Students and staff are invited to join them in the audience as they demonstrate these skills through a series of critical debates in January, February and March.
Questions for the debates have been drafted by the Law School’s leading academics and reflect and provoke some of the critical issues of the day. As an audience member, you are encouraged to participate – ask questions of our debaters and challenge the themes presented to you!
All debates take place between 14.00 – 17.00 and will be held online.
Wednesday 27 January: EU Law Debates
The debate questions in this session have been prepared by Dr Martin Hedemann-Robinson. The session will be chaired by Darren Weir.
- “This House believes that the EU should move to decide that all foreign policy issues in general, not just those relating to economic matters such as trade, should be decided by qualified majority voting in the Council of the EU”
- “This House believes that the European Union should allow member states to apply stricter human rights standards than those of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU”
- “European Union Citizenship should not depend on a person’s nationality but instead be dependent upon whether someone has lawfully resided within the territory of a member state for a minimum period of time.”
Book your audience member ticket
Wednesday 3 February: Family Law Debates
The debate questions in this session have been prepared by Professor Rosemary Hunter. The session will be chaired by Professor Rosemary Hunter.
- “This House believes that the European Court of Human Rights is correct to say that mere biological relationships are not sufficient to establish family life”
- “This House believes that civil partnerships have served their purpose and should now be abolished”
- “This House believes that surrogacy contracts should be enforceable.”
Book your audience member ticket
Wednesday 10 February: Company Law Debates
The debate questions in this session have been prepared by Kerry Love. The session will be chaired by Kerry Love.
- “This house believes that Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 433, CA is no longer to be viewed as leading on corporate veil lifting given the Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34: [2013] 2 AC 415 decision”
- “This house believes that Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 is nothing more than a legal right without a corresponding remedy”
- “This house believes that Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22 HL should be resigned to historical reference and no longer followed slavishly by the courts.”
Book your audience member ticket
Wednesday 24 February: Intellectual Property Debates
The debate questions in this session have been prepared by Dr Jose Bellido. The session will be chaired by Emek Delibas.
- “This House believes that the EU notion of originality of should be the approach taken by UK even after Brexit”
- This House believes that there is no need for the United Kingdom to introduce a statutory unfair competition regime. The tort of passing off provides entirely satisfactory protection against misappropriation of trading reputation.”
Book your audience member ticket
Wednesday 3 March: Contract Law Debates
The debate questions in this session have been prepared by Dr Asta Zokaitye. The session will be chaired by Dr Asta Zokaitye and Darren Weir.
- “This House believes that contract law should further wealth distribution”
- “This House believes that contract law’s primary aim is to negate the harm caused by induced reliance”
- “This House believes that freedom and consent form the cornerstones of the modern system of contract law.”
Book your audience member ticket
Wednesday 10 March: Debates in Data Protection, Privacy and Cyber Security Law
The debate questions in this session have been prepared by Lisa Dickson. The session will be chaired by Darren Weir.
- “The House believes that Privacy is Dead”
- “This House believes that the ICO has insufficient powers to protect individuals’ data”
- “This House believes that the GDPR is insufficient to effectively regulate the internet of things.”