header-logo header-logo

21 May 2010
Issue: 7418 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Town and country planning

R (on the application of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council and another [2010] UKSC 20, [2010] All ER (D) 98 (May)

The Supreme Court considered an appeal in respect of a compulsory purchase order made by a local authority in circumstances where for the purposes of s 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in arriving at its decision, the authority had taken into consideration a commitment to develop another site.

Certain principles could be derived from case authority in the planning context: (i) the question of what was a material (or relevant) consideration for the purposes of what was s 70(2) of the 1990 Act was a question of law, but the weight to be given to it was a matter for the decision maker; (ii) financial viability might be material if it related to the development; (iii) financial dependency of part of a composite development on another part might be a relevant consideration, in the sense that the proposed development would finance other relevant planning benefits might be material; and

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll