The Court of Appeal has delivered its first substantive ruling on the Subsidy Control Act 2022, settling a question left open since the regime replaced the EU state aid framework in January 2023: when a public authority disputes that it has given a subsidy at all, does the Competition Appeal Tribunal review that decision only for irrationality, or can it decide the question itself?
In Aubrey Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority, handed down on 29 June 2026, Lord Justice Zacaroli ruled for a unanimous panel that the latter is correct.
The case concerned two loans totalling £120 million made by the GMCA in 2024 to special purpose vehicles linked to the Renaker development group, funding two residential tower projects in Manchester. Aubrey Weis, a rival Manchester developer, argued the loans constituted an unlawful subsidy because the interest rates charged fell below what a commercial lender would have required.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal, chaired by Hodge Malek KC, dismissed that challenge in July 2025, and Weis appealed on the basis the tribunal had wrongly substituted its own judgment for the GMCA’s rather than confining itself to a conventional public law review.
DLA Piper UK LLP, instructed for the GMCA, successfully resisted that argument; Walker Morris LLP acted for Weis throughout. Lord Justice Zacaroli held that whether financial assistance is a subsidy in the first place is a jurisdictional question, one the Competition Appeal Tribunal is entitled to determine de novo.
That is distinct from the broader policy judgment Parliament has left to public authorities once a subsidy is established. Lords Justice Nugee and Miles agreed.
Internal due diligence will not shield a funding decision from full tribunal scrutiny once a competitor or other interested party challenges whether a subsidy exists. The CAT can determine that question itself, regardless of the process the public authority followed.
Counsel acting for public authorities should ensure the commercial market operator analysis is correctly applied at the time of the decision, rather than relying on institutional process to justify it after the fact.
With Subsidy Control Act litigation now establishing its first appellate precedent, firms advising local and combined authorities on infrastructure and housing finance face a sharper compliance bar, and DLA Piper’s win in defending the GMCA’s process sets the template other respondents will look to follow.