header-logo header-logo

Supermarket sweep

10 June 2010 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7421 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public , Environment
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Dobson reports on the pitch battle between Sainsbury’s & Tesco

With austerity as the new public sector watchword, every little helps. Except, of course, when it doesn’t. This unfortunately became clear to Wolverhampton Council on 12 May 2010 when its decision to make a compulsory purchase order (CPO) of a site substantially owned or controlled by Sainsbury’s in favour of a scheme proposed by Tesco was ruled unlawful by a majority of the Supreme Court. The case in question was R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council and another [2010] UKSC 20, [2010] All ER (D) 98 (May).

Background

Both Tesco and Sainsbury’s applied for outline planning consent to develop the semi-derelict Raglan Street site (RSS) in Wolverhampton City Centre. Sainsbury’s owns or controls some 86% of that site and Tesco controls most of the remainder. Tesco also controls another large site in Wolverhampton City Centre some 850m away from RSS and known as the Royal Hospital Site (RHS). This site has a number of listed buildings in poor condition

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll