Law360: Judges in England and Wales will increasingly be called upon to use new court powers to compel alternative dispute resolution after a precedent-setting judgment was handed down, the country's most senior judge said 4 June 2024.

Commercial analysis: The High Court has given judgment in a contract dispute involving a defence of waiver by election. The court found that the claimant did not have actual or blind-eye knowledge of its right to terminate, so could not have elected to waive the right. In reaching its finding, the court noted that the claimant’s instruction of solicitors to draft and advise on the contract gives a rebuttable presumption of knowledge. However, the court found this to be rebutted, since evidence of advice sought and received showed the right was not advised on at the relevant times. While not being able to simply turn a blind-eye, the expectation not to avoid making suitable enquiries will require suspicion that a right may exist first, but mere awareness of a clause underpinning that right is not sufficient. This case will be of interest to those instructed in drafting contracts and those advising on whether a contractual right has been effectively waived, when knowledge is disputed.Written by

A sufficient acknowledgement is the identification of the work in question and is required for a person to rely on certain of the fair dealing exceptions.

Sufficient cause describes a reason or explanation that a court or tribunal accepts as adequate to justify a procedural step not otherwise allowed, such as extending time limits, setting aside a default judgment, or reinstating struck-out proceedings.Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it is a flexible, context‑specific standard rather than a rigid statutory formula. Legislation and rules of court more often use related expressions such as “good reason”, “good cause” or “good and sufficient cause”, with case law clarifying what will be treated as sufficient cause in particular contexts (for example, illness, serious procedural error, or misleading conduct by the other party, but usually not mere oversight or workload).The concept is central to applications for relief from sanctions, motions for extension of time, appeals lodged out of time, and applications to recall or set aside orders. Courts in all four jurisdictions balance the adequacy of the cause against factors such as finality of litigation, prejudice to the other party, compliance culture and the interests of justice. Usage and underlying principles are broadly consistent, though the precise tests and terminology derive from the specific procedural rules and authorities in each jurisdiction.

Following an Extraordinary Cabinet meeting on 29 June 2026, Suffolk County Council has decided to issue proceedings against the Secretary of State for its local government reorganisation (LGR) decision in Suffolk. Councillors unanimously agreed to proceed with an application for judicial review, arguing that the Secretary of State departed from officials' advice, exceeded his statutory powers and failed to apply the government's published decision-making criteria when selecting a three-unitary authority model.

Suffolk County Council has called a special Cabinet meeting on 29 June 2026 to decide whether to proceed with legal action against the Secretary of State's local government reorganisation (LGR) decision for Suffolk. The government's formal reply to the council's pre-action letter states that a single unitary authority was considered the strongest proposal for Suffolk, meeting the assessment criteria more strongly than a three-unitary proposal in terms of geography, financial resilience and service delivery, although the latter also met the criteria but was complicated by a significant boundary change request modification. The council will consider whether the Secretary of State's decision exceeded his legal powers, failed to follow the statutory process and departed from the government's published criteria without clear justification.

Suffolk County Council has issued a pre-action letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, in relation to the government's March 2026 decision to replace Suffolk's county, district and borough councils with a new unitary council structure. The council contends that the decision exceeds the Secretary of State's legal powers, does not follow the statutory process set out in legislation and departs from the government's published criteria without justification. The council has requested disclosure of the analysis underpinning the decision and withdrawal of the proposal. It states that it will consider formal judicial review proceedings if it does not receive a satisfactory response.

The Sugar Association of London model arbitration clause is as follows. Any

Of its own kind or class, unique, on its own. A rule of construction.

Of full legal capacity.

A term of a life policy allowing the life company to refuse to admit a death claim resulting from the suicide of the life assured. This can be time bound in that it only applies to suicides committed within the first few years of the start of the policy.

The suitability obligation All authorised firms are subject to a suitability obligation which requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that personal recommendations or decisions to trade are suitable for their clients. The suitability obligation applies to: • firms who are providing investment advisory services, and • firms who are providing discretionary portfolio management services Firms who are providing non-advised investment services will be subject to the appropriateness obligation (see Practice Note: Appropriateness). Firms have to gather the information 'necessary' about their clients in relation to their: • knowledge and experience in the investment field relevant to the type of investment or service • financial situation, and • investment objectives For more information on the suitability obligation see Practice Note Suitability. When does the obligation to provide a suitability report apply? In certain circumstances firms are required to provide suitability reports to their clients under COBS 9.4. Firms must provide suitability reports to retail clients if the firm makes a personal recommendation to a client and the client: • acquires a holding