This Practice Note is intended to serve as a guide to assessing vertical agreements that fall outside The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022 (VABEO). It primarily draws from and provides an overview of the CMA’s Guidance on vertical restraints (2022 Guidance). This Practice Note assumes familiarity with VABEO and the Chapter I prohibition under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998). For a full analysis of the availability of VABEO, including the application of the 30% market share thresholds, and the hardcore and excluded restrictions, see further, Introduction to the application of Chapter I to vertical agreements and The Competition Act 1998 (Vertical Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022. In addition, more generally, see Chapter I prohibition. Starting position Where vertical agreements fall outside the safe harbour of VABEO (eg where the 30% market share thresholds are exceeded or there are hardcore/excluded restrictions present), there is no general presumption that they will fall within the Chapter I prohibition or that, if they do, they will not

This Practice Note is intended to serve as a guide to assessing vertical agreements that fall outside the Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 (VBER 2022). It contains (amongst other things) an overview of the Commission’s 2022 Guidelines on vertical restraints (2022 Guidelines) which set out detailed guidance for the parties to follow in this context. This Practice Note assumes familiarity with the VBER 2022. For a full analysis of the availability of the VBER 2022, including the application of the 30% market share thresholds, and the hardcore and excluded restrictions, see further, Introduction to the application of Article 101 TFEU to vertical agreements and The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720. It also assumes a familiarity with Articles 101(1) and (3) TFEU. See further, Article 101(1) TFEU—the prohibition on restrictive agreements and Individual exemptions under Article 101(3) TFEU. Starting position Where vertical agreements fall outside the safe harbour of VBER 2022 (eg where the 30% market share thresholds are exceeded or there are hardcore restrictions present), there is no general presumption

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. On 10 May 2022, the Commission adopted a new Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 (VBER 2022). The VBER 2022 replaced the previous Vertical Restraints Block Regulation 330/2010 (VBER 2010, also referred to as the VRBE in this Practice Note) on 1 June 2022. This Practice Note was drafted for the VBER 2010. NOTE—The VBER 2010 expired on 31 May 2022 and was replaced by the VBER 2022 with effect from 1 June 2022. Under Article 10 VBER 2022, there was a 12 month transition period (ending on 31 May 2023) to accommodate pre-existing vertical agreements already in force on 31 May 2022 which satisfied the conditions for exemption provided in the VBER 2010 on 31 May 2022 but which did not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided in the VBER 2022. This Practice Note is therefore for background information only. For an assessment of the VBER 2022, see further, Introduction to the application of Article 101 TFEU to vertical agreements

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Market Standards Trend Report looks at reporting by premium listed commercial companies in 2022 on the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The report provides an overview of the regulatory regime, examines how FTSE 350 companies have responded to the reporting requirements and includes examples of best practice reporting. The report also includes commentary and practical guidance from leading practitioners in this area. What does the Market Standards trend report cover? This report looks at the

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 7 September 2026, the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade published a consultation setting out the government’s proposals to amend the UK’s corporate reporting framework. The key proposals in relation to remuneration included the following: (i) removal of the annual advisory shareholder vote on the directors’ remuneration report, (ii) streamlining or removal of accumulated director shareholding and option-holding disclosures, (iii) removal of CEO: employee pay ratio reporting, and (iv) removal of several other statutory disclosures including malus and clawback policies and their operation during the year, alignment between directors’ remuneration and wider workforce pay, and the company’s response to significant shareholder dissent. Some of the matters proposed for removal from legislation—notably malus and clawback, workforce alignment, engagement and responses to shareholder dissent—would continue to be addressed under the UK Corporate Governance Code for companies subject to it, on a ‘comply or explain’ basis. The consultation closes on 30 November 2026, and the government has said that it aims to publish a consultation outcome within six months

Private Client analysis: The claimant, an incorporated charity, applied for a cy-pres scheme to alter the objects of the charity and for a declaration that its governors had the power under the Public Schools Act 1868 to amend those objects in the future. The charity in question was the ‘Free Grammar School of John Lyon’, now known as Harrow School, which had been established by Royal Charter in 1572. The Judge concluded that a cy-près event within the meaning of section 62 of the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) had not occurred and further, that as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Public Schools Act 1868 did not permit amendment of the objects set out in the charter. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

Corporate Crime analysis: Olivia Dwan and April O’Neill of BCL Solicitors provide an analysis of the recently announced Independent Sentencing Review, looking at the background to the Review, the key aspects the Review will and won’t consider, the aim of the Review and what, if any, outcomes we can expect from it.

An individual who analyses investments, such as companies, to see if they are worth buying.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned an application for Norwich Pharmacal relief against a law firm where the granting of the relief would require the firm to disclose the identity of a London based Business Intelligence Consultancy (Consultancy) which had obtained a Russian language report (Glavstroy Report) which was alleged to be a forgery. The decision provides insights into such applications against law firms and the limitations of litigation privilege in such circumstances. Written by Natalie Todd, partner, and Sam Macintosh, associate at Cooke, Young and Keidan.

An anchor statement is a statement within the collaborative process in family cases setting out the parties' aims and goals.

Anchoring describes the behavioural effect whereby the first figure, proposal or frame put forward exerts disproportionate influence on later negotiation, valuation and decision‑making. In legal practice across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it is a descriptive term (not defined in legislation or case law) used in settlement negotiations, mediation, Part 36/Calderbank offers, pleadings of sums, and submissions on damages or sentencing. Practitioners deploy anchors to shape the bargaining range; opponents seek to neutralise them with evidence and objective benchmarks.Courts and tribunals recognise the risk of unfair anchoring and rely on structured guidance to promote consistency: the Judicial College Guidelines (England & Wales), the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines (Northern Ireland), Scottish case law with reference to the Judicial College Guidelines, and the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 (Ireland). Over‑ or under‑anchoring can have costs consequences where offers are unreasonable.Do not confuse anchoring with the “anchor defendant” or “anchor claim” used to establish jurisdiction or service out (for example, the “necessary or proper party” gateway in England & Wales, similar concepts in Scotland, and Article 8(1) Brussels Ia/Brussels Recast still relevant in Ireland). In consumer and competition contexts, “price anchoring” (reference pricing) may attract scrutiny under the UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Ireland’s Consumer Protection Act 2007.

Law firms might be caught by the consumer credit regime by entering into a consumer credit agreement as lender, eg in respect of their fees, or by engaging in ancillary consumer credit activities such as debt adjusting. This