Court of Appeal agrees to hear Subsidy Control Act claim over £140m loans made by combined authority to developers

Developer Aubrey Weis's claim – which was brought under section 70(1) of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 – centred on a decision taken by the GMCA in March 2024 to approve two loans to companies in the Renaker Group.

The first loan of £70.8m was made to Trinity Developments (Manchester), which is developing four high-rise residential tower blocks on two parcels of land known as "Trinity Islands" located by The River Irwell and Trinity Way.

The second loan of £69.2m was made to New Jackson (Contour) Investments, which is developing two high-rise residential tower blocks known as "Contour" in the Great Jackson Street area.

Weis, who runs Weis Group, argued that the loans would not have been granted by a commercial operator and that they had been concluded on non-market terms and had distorted the proper and fair operation of the relevant market in and around Manchester.

The claim was dismissed in July this year.

Weis subsequently applied to the CAT for permission to appeal, submitting that the tribunal had erred in law by failing to apply orthodox judicial review principles to the GMCA committee's decision correctly.

The tribunal ultimately dismissed the application in August, finding: "In our view, none of the Appellant's grounds of appeal discloses any error of law on which permission to appeal should be granted."

The Court of Appeal has since agreed to hear Weis's appeal on all grounds.

The grounds of appeal are:

• The CAT failed to apply established principles of judicial review when assessing the respondent’s decision to grant financial assistance.
• The CAT erred in law by concluding that the respondent had lawful regard to the statutory guidance despite no evidence that the relevant decision-making body did so.
• The CAT misinterpreted and misapplied the EU Commission Reference Rate Communication.
• The CAT failed to take into account relevant considerations, including comparative commercial loan terms, risk concentration concerning the SPV’s beneficial owner, and representations by the borrower to the local authority that the schemes are not commercially viable and thereby obtained exemption from affordable housing requirements.

A spokesman for the Weis Group said: "We are grateful for this decision and look forward to putting our case in court. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that each one of the grounds were not fanciful, are important issues relating to the Subsidy Control Act and have a real chance of success. We are particularly pleased that the use of conflicting viability reports will be examined. 

"Moreover, it is of enormous importance in the context of the current Government's agenda of further devolution of powers and creation of the National Housing Bank. With some £16bn of public funds up for grabs it is imperative that there are proper processes in place which guarantee the correct and proper administration of public money. Government must ensure that there is no distribution of funding to a small number of parties that creates an uncompetitive environment." 

A Greater Manchester Combined Authority spokesperson meanwhile said: “This case was brought to the Competition Appeals Tribunal and we won on every count.

“An experienced Tribunal saw all the documents and stood behind our processes. In fact, the Tribunal Chair praised our approach, which helped deliver 11,000 new homes across Greater Manchester, regenerating brownfield sites at no cost to the taxpayer and without losing a single penny. 

“We have full confidence in our processes and the expert team behind them, and we are ready to defend our case in court.” 

Adam Carey