Law360: The government should form a commission to secure long-term commitments and stability for pensions policy as the country gears up for potential political upheaval in 2023.

Law360, Expert analysis: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has failed to set out how its rules meet government requirements on regulating artificial intelligence (AI) and is moving toward reliance on companies to self-report, putting it at risk of deferring excessively to the sector it regulates, legal experts say.

Law360: The UK will have to radically rethink what retirement means, amid a growing number of warning signs that millions of savers will have to work longer and retire with less income than their parents, unless the government intervenes, pension experts have warned.

This Practice Note looks at the purpose of expert meetings and the different approaches that can be taken. It explains the status of discussions between experts and the joint statement and also considers the extent to which the parties may be bound by any agreement reached between the experts. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. For any additional provisions, see: Court specific guidance below. Expert witnesses and those instructing them are expected to comply with: • the Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims ('the Guidance') • Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 7 Conventional directions for experts’ meetings and joint statements The court may order an exchange of experts’ initial reports and often will, under CPR 35.12, order a subsequent 'without prejudice' joint discussion between the experts in each discipline. (In some courts, that meeting will be directed to be held before the reports are exchanged.) The court may also direct that, after this discussion, the experts prepare a joint

Experts duties and obligations Stage Checkpoint Practical points CPR /PD or Guidance applicable Caselaw if relevant Prior to instruction Is a report needed? • will it assist the court? • does expert have the necessary knowledge and expertise? • reliable body of evidence to underpin the report? • is expert aware of their duties to the court, their need to keep to deadlines and provide costs budgeting information? • is expert still in active practice? • do they respond promptly to emails? —Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims—Civil Justice Council Guidance See Kennedy v Cordia Services [2016] UKSC 6• will the skilled evidence assist the court in the task ahead? • does witness have necessary knowledge and expertise? • is witness impartial in assessment of evidence? • is there a reliable body of opinion underpinning their opinion? Is funding body aware of need for instruction and likely cost? Is it a legally aided matter? • expert to give assessment of likely cost • LAA prior authority obtained? • within maximum rate? Competence of expert • in

The Home Office has announced that it will be extending the date until which people can continue to use a biometric residence permit (BRP) or EUSS biometric residence card (BRC) that expired on 31 December 2024, for international travel, assuming they have continuing leave. The previous end date was 31 March 2025, and this has now been pushed to 1 June 2025. The extension has been added further to feedback, and to ensure a smooth transition to the new digital system. In the same announcement, the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Seema Malhotra MP confirmed that the Home Office has been reviewing its methodology for estimating the number of BRP holders who still need to create a UK Visas & Immigration (UKVI) account, in order to access an eVisa. They now anticipate that this number is around 600,000. The number of visa holders who have switched to an eVisa is estimated to be over four million. The announcement further notes that ‘a number of people who created a UKVI account already had one created as part of their visa application, and therefore now have 2 UKVI accounts – although only one eVisa. This should not cause issues for those people, but it does mean that the published data includes a number of duplicate accounts’.

Various Home Office guidance documents have been amended on 27 March 2024 to confirm that expired Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) and EU Settlement Scheme Biometric Residence Cards (BRCs) can be used for up to 18 months after the expiry date as a valid identity document for verification of immigration status purposes in various interactions with the Home Office, provided the holder still has valid leave. These include opening a UKVI account in order to access an eVisa, using the ‘UK Immigration: ID Check’ app to make an application, confirming that you are free from immigration time restrictions for the purposes of an application for citizenship, applying for change of conditions to obtain access to public funds, and sitting the Life in the UK test. This follows the coming the into force of amendments to the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008, SI 2008/3048 on the same date, which gives holders of expired BRPs who are under 70 years old a deadline of 18 months within which to replace their ex BRP with an eVisa. Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules is also being amended on 9 April 2025, further to Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 733, to allow a non-EEA national applicant in an EUSS application to use a BRC or BRP for up to 18 months after its expiry as proof of identity and nationality and without having to re-enrol fingerprints. It remains the case that expired BRPs/BRCs can still only be used for travelling back to the UK until 1 June 2025 after which an eVisa will be required.

The Home Office has in recent days updated various guidance documents to extend the deadline by which expired Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) can continue to be used for various purposes. This includes creating a UK Visas and Immigration account and using the UK ID checking app when applying for permission to stay (for persons who are unable to use their passports with the app). Expired BRPs can now continue to be used for relevant purposes until the end of 2026 or 24 months from the expiry date (whichever is earlier), rather than 18 months after the expiry date. The previous 18 months deadline was in many cases 30 June 2026.

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on expiry or sunset reviews in anti-dumping duty investigations. It provides guidance on the legal basis for an expiry review, the application and initiation of an expiry review and the conduct of an expiry review. Introduction Anti-dumping duties must only remain in force as long as and to the extent that it may be necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury (see Practice Note: An introduction to anti-dumping duties). As such, circumstance must require that anti-dumping duties remain in place. This can only be the case where there is evidence of dumping causing injury. If there is no dumping or there is no injury even if there is dumping, the anti-dumping duties should not remain in force. This principle is contained in Article 11.1 of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-dumping Agreement). This principle allows for at least two reviews in terms of Article 11. The first being interim reviews. Interim

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on expiry or sunset reviews in subsidy investigations. It provides guidance on the legal basis for an expiry review, the application and initiation of an expiry review and the conduct of an expiry review. Introduction Countervailing duties must only remain in force as long as and to the extent that it may be necessary to counteract subsidisation which is causing injury. This is set out in Article 21.1 of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the ‘SCM Agreement’). The Appellate Body has stated that Article 21.1 sets out a general rule that, after imposition of a countervailing duty, the continued application of the duty is subject to certain disciplines. These disciplines relate to: • the duration of the countervailing duty (‘only as long as…necessary’) • the magnitude of the countervailing duty (‘only … to the extent necessary’), and • the purpose of the countervailing duty (to counteract subsidisation which is causing injury’) This general rule therefore allows for at least two reviews in

Employment analysis: Lawmakers faced with rapid advances in AI are turning to the safeguards needed to protect individuals whose interests are affected by AI systems and to build trust in automated decision-making. Building trust in automated outcomes will be much more of a challenge for many years following the revelations which are emerging from the Post Office scandal. Common among these safeguards are auditing, human oversight, effective contestability, transparency and explainability. But what is most likely to be effective? James Davies, partner at Lewis Silkin, provides an analysis.

Immigration analysis: In an immigration appeal it is possible for the Tribunal to appoint a third party as a ‘litigation friend’ for an appellant who lacks mental capacity to conduct proceedings. For the first time the Tribunal has published guidance on this process and this news analysis explains the approach advisers should take in these cases. Written by Brian Dikoff, legal officer at Migrants Organise