Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd, R (on the application of) v Tesco Stores Ltd [2012] EWHC 620 (Admin) (16 March 2012)

Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd, R (on the application of) v Tesco Stores Ltd [2012] EWHC 620 (Admin) (16 March 2012)

The Council's disposal of the Community Facility to Tesco did not constitute a public works contract under the Public Contracts Directive or Regulations, as there were no enforceable development obligations benefiting the Council. The Council complied with its duty under section 123(2) by obtaining independent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 620 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Midlands Co-operative Society Limited; Defendant: Birmingham City Council; Interested Party: Tesco Stores Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Contracts Directive, Compulsory Purchase Order, Best Consideration, Section 106 Agreements, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Public Procurement Local Government Law Planning Law Public Contracts Directive Compulsory Purchase Order Best Consideration Section 106 Agreements +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midlands Co-operative Society Limited

Claimant

Birmingham City Council

Defendant

Tesco Stores Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's disposal of land to Tesco breached the Public Contracts Directive and Public Contracts Regulations 2006
  2. 2 Whether the Council breached its duty under section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 to obtain best consideration
  3. 3 Whether the tender process and CPO authorisation were legally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's disposal of the Community Facility to Tesco did not constitute a public works contract under the Public Contracts Directive or Regulations, as there were no enforceable development obligations benefiting the Council. The Council complied with its duty under section 123(2) by obtaining independent valuation advice and best consideration. The tender process was not legally unfair, and although the Council acted on a mistaken belief regarding the Co-op's planning permission, a new CPO decision is required. Legitimate expectation was not breached as the Council provided opportunities for input and reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted to the Claimant
  • Council to make a new first stage CPO decision if required