header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 June 2010 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7421 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public , Environment
printer mail-detail

Supermarket sweep

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll