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
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll