Uploaded December 2024 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This online webinar was organised by the UCL Centre for Ethics and Law.
About this event
Re-domiciliation allows a company incorporated in one jurisdiction to become incorporated into another, whilst retaining its legal personality. A cost efficient and flexible re-domiciliation regime can therefore help the overall attractiveness of a jurisdiction as a destination of choice for business.
Following a public consultation, the Independent Expert Panel on Corporate Re-domiciliation (the ‘Panel’) was established to develop a specific proposal that would enable companies to re-domicile in the UK. During this webinar the Panel’s Chair, Professor Vanessa Knapp OBE, will discuss the Panel’s recommendation for a two-way re-domiciliation regime and how this would work in practice. Dr Edmund Schuster will provide comments on the proposals.
The webinar is a timely opportunity for stakeholders to consider the Panel’s recommendations, and how they might impact them, ahead of a further consultation that will be opened once the Government has released more detailed proposals.
The report of the UK independent expert panel can be found here.
Speakers:
Professor Vanessa Knapp OBE (Harris Manchester College)
Dr Edmund Schuster (LSE)
Chair: Dr Anna Donovan (UCL Laws)
This online webinar was organised by the UCL Centre for Ethics and Law.
About this event
Re-domiciliation allows a company incorporated in one jurisdiction to become incorporated into another, whilst retaining its legal personality. A cost efficient and flexible re-domiciliation regime can therefore help the overall attractiveness of a jurisdiction as a destination of choice for business.
Following a public consultation, the Independent Expert Panel on Corporate Re-domiciliation (the ‘Panel’) was established to develop a specific proposal that would enable companies to re-domicile in the UK. During this webinar the Panel’s Chair, Professor Vanessa Knapp OBE, will discuss the Panel’s recommendation for a two-way re-domiciliation regime and how this would work in practice. Dr Edmund Schuster will provide comments on the proposals.
The webinar is a timely opportunity for stakeholders to consider the Panel’s recommendations, and how they might impact them, ahead of a further consultation that will be opened once the Government has released more detailed proposals.
The report of the UK independent expert panel can be found here.
Speakers:
Professor Vanessa Knapp OBE (Harris Manchester College)
Dr Edmund Schuster (LSE)
Chair: Dr Anna Donovan (UCL Laws)







![Regulatory Models for Algorithmic Assessment: Robust Delegation or Kicking The Can?
A UCL Laws lecture recording from 25 April 2024.
Speakers: Prof. Margot Kaminski (University of Colorado Law School), Associate Prof. Michael Veale (UCL Laws) and Assistant Prof. Jennifer Cobbe (University of Cambridge).
Chair: Andrew Strait (Ada Lovelace Institute)
Recent years have seen a surge in regulation targeting algorithmic systems, including online platforms (Online Safety Act [UK], Digital Services Act [EU]), artificial intelligence (AI Act [EU], AI Executive Order [US]), and the application and extension of existing frameworks, such as data protection, to algorithmic challenges (UK and EU GDPR, California Consumer Privacy Act and Draft Automated Decisionmaking Technology Regulations [USA]). Much of the time, these instruments require regulated actors to undertake or outsource some form of assessment, such as a risk assessment, impact assessment or conformity assessment, to ensure the systems being deployed have desired characteristics. On first glance, all these assessments look like the same regulatory mode — but are they? What are policymakers and regulators actually doing when they outsource the analysis of such systems to actors or audit ecosystems, and under what conditions might it produce good regulatory results? Is the AI Acts conformity assessment really the same kind of beast as the Digital Services Act or Online Safety Acts risk assessment, or the GDPRs data protection impact assessment? Is this just kicking the can on value-laden issues, like fairness or transparency, representativeness or speech norms, down to other actors, because legislators dont want to do it?
In this discussion, three scholars of these systems will compare and contrast different regulatory regimes concerning AI with a focus on how actors within them can understand the systems around them. Does the outsourcing of the analysis of how AI systems work make sense, and is it given to actors with the position and analytic capacity to do it, or might it lead to regulatory arbitrage or even failure? Regulatory Models for Algorithmic Assessment: Robust Delegation or Kicking The Can?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lbVEgSLO3iY/mqdefault.jpg)


