Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council & Anor

The Council could lawfully consider the wider planning benefits, including those arising from the RHS development, when choosing between rival schemes for the RSS site, provided the CPO was justified by the RSS development alone. The Council did not act unlawfully or with predetermination.

Parties: Claimant: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd; Defendant: Wolverhampton City Council; Interested Party: Tesco Stores Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 03 February 2009
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics: Compulsory Purchase Orders, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Predetermination, Section 226 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Administrative Law Planning Law Compulsory Acquisition Compulsory Purchase Orders Planning Permission Judicial Review Predetermination Section 226 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Case Brief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Claimant

Wolverhampton City Council

Defendant

Tesco Stores Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Council lawfully considered benefits from a separate site (RHS) when deciding to exercise CPO powers for the RSS site under section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
2 Whether the Council's decision was tainted by predetermination or bias

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed