A quantitative threshold applied by the European Commission to ensure EU competition law only applies to conduct that appreciably restricts competition, in particular by only applying EU competition law when there is an appreciable effect on trade between member states, ie of a certain magnitude.

Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition within the internal market.  However, a restrictive agreement (whether between competitors or non-competitors) will not trigger the Article 101(1) TFEU prohibition where its impact on competition is not ‘appreciable’. In other words, the prohibition does not apply where any identified anti-competitive effects (presumed or otherwise) are ‘insignificant’—the detrimental effects on competition must be of a sufficient magnitude to merit the attention of the authorities. De minimis doctrine—appreciability This principle—known as the de minimis doctrine—was first formulated in Völk v Vervaecke, where the Court of Justice stated that: '...an agreement falls outside the prohibition in Article [81(1)] where it has only an insignificant effect on the market, taking into account the weak position which the persons concerned have on the market of the product in question.’ This was applicable regardless of the nature of the restraint in question, including in relation to ‘hardcore’ restraints (noting that Völk involved a clause

A person who is engaged by someone to be taught a trade or skill.

This Practice Note sets out the details of the apprenticeship levy, which is payable by certain employers at a rate of 0.5% of the employer’s annual pay bill. A £15,000 annual allowance for employers means that the levy is only paid by employers whose annual pay bills exceed £3m. The apprenticeship levy is administered by HMRC as part of the real time information (RTI) system. Employers pay the levy via the PAYE system. History of the apprenticeship levy The apprenticeship levy has been payable since 6 April 2017. It was introduced by Finance Act 2016 (FA 2016), having been originally announced at Summer Budget 2015. The intention was to 'significantly increase the quantity and quality of apprenticeships in England' by creating an apprenticeships fund that each employer can then access to meet its individual needs. Following the Labour party’s success at the 2024 general election, reform of the apprenticeship levy featured in the King’s Speech on 17 July 2024, with the then newly established Skills England being tasked with identifying the training for which the replacement Growth and

This Practice Note considers how employers with employees in England access the funds arising out of the payment of the apprenticeship levy. It looks at the apprenticeship service (AS) account, how the amount of the funds in that account are calculated, reservation of funds by smaller employers who do not pay the levy, the apprenticeship standards, the funding bands, extra funding for young apprentices and how the funds can be used. All employers in the UK are potentially required to pay an apprenticeship levy, set at a rate of 0.5% of an employer’s annual pay bill, even if they do not have apprentices. However, an annual allowance of £15,000 means that in practice the levy is only paid by employers whose pay bill exceeds £3m. The levy is collected through the PAYE system alongside tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs). For more information, see Practice Note: Apprenticeship levy. Apprenticeships are a devolved policy and so the authorities in each part of the UK are responsible for their own apprenticeship programmes, including how funding

The essential feature of an apprenticeship at common law was that the apprentice contracted to be taught a trade or calling: the apprentice was bound to the employer in order to learn a trade, and the employer agreed to teach and instruct them. Common law contracts of apprenticeship are now unlikely to arise, not least because it is an offence under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (ASCLA 2009) for a person to describe a course or training as an apprenticeship if it is not a statutory apprenticeship, unless the course or training is provided to the individual under or in pursuance of a contract of employment between the individual and that person (see: Protection of the terms 'apprenticeship' and 'apprentice', below). For information on common law contracts of apprenticeship, see: Contract of apprenticeship, below. This Practice Note considers the requirements of the statutory scheme as it applies in England. For information on the position: • in Scotland, see Practice Note: Apprenticeships in Scotland • in Wales, see: Apprenticeships frameworks below and Practice Note: Employment law in Wales—Apprenticeships An

This Practice Note examines the legal issues that arise when engaging an apprentice in Scotland. Introduction to apprenticeships in Scotland The contract of apprenticeship has its origin in Scotland in the middle ages where its purpose was to monopolise the art or business practised in certain trades. As long ago as the early 19th century, courts were being asked to distinguish between contracts of apprenticeship and other contracts, usually of employment. That question has continued to be asked. The Scottish Modern Apprenticeship regime is very different and widespread. It is in large part state assisted as part of an effort to match skills with the needs of business and industry. Modern Apprentices learn both ‘on the job’ and from colleges and universities. The apprenticeship is overseen by training providers. Modern contracts are often tripartite involving employer, apprentice and trainer. Legal framework for common law apprenticeships A contract of apprenticeship, while it may include a contract to work for hire, is primarily a contract to teach and to learn a certain trade or handicraft. It

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This decision of Mr Justice Richards considers Mr Drelle’s appeal of certain aspects of a first instance judgment issued by Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Burton in the Insolvency and Companies Court, which was broadly in favour of Servis-Terminal LLC (Servis-Terminal). The appeal turned on two issues, in essence: (a) whether a bankruptcy petition can be based on a foreign court judgment giving rise to a debt when that judgment had not been either registered or recognised in England; and (b) the correct approach to analysing the foreign court judgement and the debt created by it. The court ultimately answered issue (a) in the affirmative and, on issue (b), found that ICC Judge Burton had taken the correct approach. This is an important decision: the manner in which a foreign court judgment can be ‘enforced’ in the English courts through a bankruptcy process (as opposed to a registration/recognition process) has rarely been the subject of reported decisions and the clear analysis and guidance given by Richards J will be of considerable assistance to practitioners. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Family analysis: At a final hearing where a local authority sought care and placement orders, the mother’s legal team withdrew (as they were professionally embarrassed) while the mother was giving oral evidence. This left the mother, who had a learning disability and an IQ of 63, unrepresented. The mother sought an adjournment of the final hearing. The recorder at first instance refused to grant the adjournment and later granted the local authority’s application for care and placement orders. In this judgment the Court of Appeal considered the mother’s appeal, wherein she argued that the hearing was unfair and should not have continued and that there should have been an adjournment to allow her to obtain legal representation. The Court of Appeal has given helpful guidance as to how to approach adjournment applications in difficult circumstances, alongside some helpful obiter observations as to how the case might have been better managed. Luke Eaton, barrister at 1GC Family Law, considers the issues.

Family analysis: The court was concerned with an application by the mother to reopen finding of facts made in 2016 in respect of injuries sustained by a child, as a consequence of later injuries suffered by a half sibling. Refusing the application, Mrs Justice Knowles gave consideration to, inter alia, the public interest in the finality of litigation, the impact of delay if there were to be a rehearing, the implications of a previous ‘pool finding’ and the lack of sufficient material new information to justify reopening the matter. Aimee Jones, chartered legal executive at Sternberg Reed LLP, sets out the issues.

Planning analysis: On 6 February 2025 the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero launched a consultation on a new draft national policy statement (NPS) for nuclear energy generation (EN-7). The government intends for the new policy to be formally designated in 2025. Once designated it will provide (alongside the Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1)), the primary policy for decisions taken by the Secretary of State on applications for development consent relating to infrastructure using nuclear fission to generate energy. At the same time as launching a consultation on the draft of EN-7, the government also published its response to the consultation on a proposed approach to siting new nuclear power stations beyond 2025 which ran from January to March 2024. This article discusses the most significant policy innovations which are proposed, what they are intended to achieve and why they have proved so controversial. Written by Alex Minhinick, partner, and Adam Reeves, solicitor at Burges Salmon.

Background On 1 April 2013, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) became responsible for the conduct supervision of all firms authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). The FCA's regulatory approach is underpinned by the concept of conduct risk, which is central to its overarching strategic objective of ensuring that the relevant markets function well. To support this overarching strategic objective the FCA has the following three operational objectives: • to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers • to protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system; and • to promote effective competition in the interests of consumers The link between these objectives and the FCA's conduct risk approach was outlined in a speech on Financial services regulation and enforcement: recent developments and emerging issues by Tracey McDermott (then FCA director of enforcement and financial crime) in October 2013 (six months into the new regulatory regime), in which the FCA made it clear that the central focus of its conduct risk