Weis (Appellant) v Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0121

Parties

Appellant(s)

Aubrey Weis

Respondent(s)

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Issue

What is the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of applications for review under the Subsidy Control Act 2022 where the main issue is whether the financial assistance given is a subsidy? When determining whether there is a subsidy: Should the CAT determine compliance with the CMO principle under s.3(2) of the Act for itself, or review the decision of the public authority on general public law grounds? Is the CAT’s jurisdiction in this area limited to a consideration of compliance with the CMO principle under s.3(2), or does it extend to considering free-standing grounds of public law review?

Facts

On 22 November 2024, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (“GMCA”) entered into two loan agreements with two special purpose vehicles that were part of the property development group Renaker (“the Renaker Loans”), both of which are beneficially owned by a property developer, Daren Whitaker (“Mr Whitaker”). The Renaker Loans were to finance the construction of two high-rise residential blocks in Manchester and were made from a fund called the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loan Fund (“GMHILF”), the primary objective of which was the creation of new homes in the Manchester area. The appellant, Aubrey Weis, is a successful property developer who owns and controls a number of companies with substantial property development investments in and around Manchester. By an application to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) in June 2024, before the Renaker Loans had been entered into but after the GMCA’s decision to approve the loans on 22 March 2024, Mr Weis sought a review of the making of the Renaker Loans on the basis that they constituted an unlawful subsidy within the meaning of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (“the 2022 Act”) in that they did not comply with the ‘commercial market operator’ principle found in s.3(2) of the 2022 Act (“the CMO Principle”). The CAT dismissed Mr Weis’ application in its judgment dated 24 July 2025. Mr Weis appealed to the Court of Appeal and his appeal was dismissed by a judgment handed down on 29 June 2026. Mr Weis now appeals to the Supreme Court.