Developer seeks permission from Supreme Court to appeal subsidy control ruling

Weis had challenged loans granted by the combined authority to Renaker Group, alleging they were unlawful subsidies not made on commercial terms.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal found, however, that the combined authority had followed a thorough, rational approval process and that the loans reflected market terms, conferring no undue economic advantage.

It rejected claims of procedural unfairness and breach of candour, and dismissed the appeal.

Weis's ensuing appeal was based on seven grounds of argument.

In Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority [2026] EWCA Civ 825 Lord Justice Zacaroli in the Court of Appeal described the first ground as the "main point raised" by the appeal.

Summarising this ground, the decision reads: "The first ground of appeal [...] is that the CAT failed lawfully to judicially review the Decision. That could only have been done on the basis of the material that was before the GMCA on 22 March 2024.

"The CAT, however, wrongly made its own decision as to whether the Loans complied with the CMO [Commercial Market Operator] principle, relying on matters that went far beyond that which was before the GMCA.”

Handing down the Court of Appeal’s decision, Zacaroli LJ said the claimant's arguments for ground one were "skilfully and attractively presented, but I do not accept them".

He continued: "As a matter of statutory construction, it is for the CAT itself to determine whether the public authority has given a subsidy before it has jurisdiction to review whether that decision was lawfully made, in accordance with the SC Principles, on public law grounds.

“Further, even if the CAT is limited to reviewing the Decision on public law grounds, the relevant question is whether the GMCA erred in law in deciding or believing that the Loans did not constitute a subsidy.

"While that is an objective question which admits of a range of reasonable answers, the question whether it falls within that range is nevertheless one for the reviewing tribunal to answer."

The remaining grounds of appeal centred on the basis that the Tribunal was required to review the process by which the GMCA reached its decision on rationality grounds.

However, Zacaroli LJ said those grounds fell away, in light of the finding that the Tribunal was entitled to determine for itself whether the loans constituted a subsidy - and in light that there was no appeal against its decision that they were not a subsidy.

On this point, the judgment said: "Even if there were flaws in the GMCA’s processes, such as a failure to follow its own policies or a failure to follow the Guidance, the CAT would have no jurisdiction over those issues and would lack the power to grant any relief.

"It follows that it would fall outside the scope of this appeal. As I have already noted, whether there might be grounds to pursue judicial review proceedings based on the failure by the GMCA to follow its own procedures, irrespective of whether the Loans constituted a subsidy under the 2022 Act, is irrelevant as that would also be outside the scope of the CAT’s jurisdiction."

Zacaroli LJ ultimately dismissed the appeal. Miles LJ and Nugee LJ both agreed.