The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee has published its Annual Report 2023, the fourth UK-EU annual report on the functioning of the Withdrawal Agreement between 1 January to 31 December 2023. The Committee has noted that six Specialised Committees established by the Withdrawal Agreement met in 2023, and that several other virtual and in-person meetings were held throughout 2023 on implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. The Committee has highlighted that the meetings and related engagement during 2023 illustrate UK-EU dialogue and cooperation to facilitate implementation and application of the Withdrawal Agreement as well as addressing outstanding issues and possible solutions.

is defined in EU(WA)A 2020, s 39(1) as the agreement between the UK and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (as that agreement is modified from time to time in accordance with any provision of it).

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO MULTI-EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES Withdrawal arrangements provide exiting employers of underfunded defined benefit occupational pension schemes with an alternative to paying in full a statutory debt arising under the Pensions Act 1995, s 75 (a s 75 debt) as a result of an employment-cessation event. When an employment-cessation event occurs in relation to an exiting employer, a s 75 debt becomes payable by the exiting employer to the scheme. In a multi-employer scheme, the exiting employer's s 75 debt is its share of the scheme deficit calculated on the buy-out basis (its liability share). A withdrawal arrangement is a contractual agreement between the exiting employer, the scheme trustees and a guarantor under which the exiting employer pays a lower amount than the full amount of its s 75 debt, and a guarantor agrees to pay the balance at a later date (eg when the scheme winds up). Withdrawal arrangements are similar to apportionment arrangements in that they deal with an employer exiting a multi-employer scheme. However, there are significant differences. For

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The court permitted a practice nurse, a defendant in a clinical negligence claim, to withdraw admissions of breach of duty made before, and maintained after, the issue of proceedings. The admissions had been made following receipt of the opinion of an independent nursing expert who subsequently ceased to undertake medicolegal work; the substitute expert did not agree with his predecessor’s opinion. Permission was granted to withdraw the admissions on condition that the defendant disclose the report of the expert who had been instructed initially. The court was critical of the delay in making the application, but despite that delay concluded that the balance of prejudice favoured the grant of permission to withdraw the admissions. Written by Jonathan Holl-Allen KC, barrister of Serjeants’ Inn Chambers.

Withdrawal of Part 1 arrest warrants and Part 2 extradition requests If an arrest warrant, issued or certified, under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003) (Part 1 arrest warrant) or an extradition request under EA 2003, Pt 2 (Part 2 extradition request) is withdrawn before a requested person is extradited, the requested person must be discharged. Withdrawal of a Part 1 arrest warrant This applies in proceedings for extradition to category 1 territories (ie Member States of the European Union, Gibraltar and any other territories subsequently designated

The consent mechanism must allow users to withdraw their consent at any time with the same ease that they gave it.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The liquidators’ claims under sections 238 and 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) were dismissed for two key reasons. Firstly, a withdrawal of share capital by a member of a registered society governed by the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (CCBSA 2014) is supported by consideration consisting of the monies originally subscribed for the shares. Secondly, the preference claim under IA 1986, s 239 failed as the respondents successfully rebutted the presumed desire to prefer. Produced in partnership with Samuel Parsons, barrister of Erskine Chambers.

Also known as a cancellation period, during which a consumer can withdraw from certain contracts for goods and services if they are made on the doorstep or at a distance.

The right of an accepting shareholder to withdraw its acceptance of an offer. Rule 34.1 of the Code provides that an accepting shareholder must be entitled to withdraw an acceptance at any time before the acceptance condition is satisfied, unless the offer is unconditional from the outset.

This Practice Note considers the provisions which apply pursuant to CPR 14 concerning applications for permission to withdraw an admission. It provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—for more information, see further the section on Court specific guidance below. For general information on admissions, see Practice Note: Admissions. For specific guidance on admissions made: • prior to the commencement of proceedings in certain personal injury cases (pursuant to CPR 14.3), see Practice Note: Pre-action admissions under CPR 14 in personal injury cases • in all other civil cases prior to the commencement of proceedings, see Practice Note: Admissions—pre-action Historic versions of CPR 14 and CPR PD 14 The CPR provisions relevant to admissions were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. In particular, CPR 14 was revised extensively and CPR PD 14 was deleted. Judgments which pre-date the amendments coming into force on 1 October 2023 may therefore include reference to the old provisions

Information Law analysis: This claim relates to the scope of production and the application of the exemptions to production of personal data in responding fully to a subject access request. The Claimant, Thomas Cole (Cole), who was a student at the Defendant school, Marlborough College (the College), submitted a data subject access request (DSAR) under Article 15 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) after he was removed from the school following his involvement in a physical altercation with another student. In this half-day case management hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin assessed whether the College was entitled to withhold, in whole or part, documents containing Cole’s personal data, rather than providing the material for inspection ahead of a two-day trial on the data protection claim expected to start in mid-2025. The court held that the College was entitled to withhold some documents (containing Cole’s personal data) on the grounds of the exemption in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, Part 3 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). In short, this exemption provides that a controller is not obliged to disclose information to a data subject where doing so involves disclosing information that relates to another individual who can be identified from that information, whether as the source of information or as the subject of such information. Written by Robyn Bond, associate at Ropes & Gray International LLP.

A notice given by an employer to a Contractor indicating sums of money which will not be paid from an application made