Bristol Airport seeks to challenge the Cardiff International Airport subsidy control ruling in the Court of Appeal
4th June, 2026
Bristol Airport is expected to apply directly to the Court of Appeal for the right to challenge the decision in the Bristol Airport v Welsh Ministers subsidy control case, after being denied permission to appeal by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Background
The Welsh Government has owned Cardiff International Airport since 2013. The airport serves more than a million passengers each year.
In April 2025, the Welsh Government awarded a grant of £205.2m to Cardiff International Airport to be used towards a range of costs including incentives to airlines to open new routes at the airport, a new hangar village and improved facilities for passengers. The value of the subsidy required the Welsh Government to refer the proposed award to the Subsidy Advice Unit. In response to the publication of the Competition and Markets Authority report, experts were brought in to build up the evidence base and refine the compliance arguments ahead of the legal commitment of the grant.
Bristol Airport is only 27 miles away from Cardiff International Airport and therefore its owners felt that their commercial interests were affected by the Welsh Government’s decision to award this large subsidy.
In July 2025, Bristol Airport Limited brought subsidy control proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the Welsh Government had failed:
a) to conclude that Cardiff International Airport Limited was an “ailing or insolvent enterprise”;
b)to satisfy the requirements at Sections 19 and / or 20 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which require additional steps to be taken when providing rescue or restructuring support to “ailing or insolvent” enterprises;
c) to satisfy Section 12(1) of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which requires proper consideration of each of the Subsidy Control Principles and there to be reasonable grounds to conclude that each of the principles is met; and
d) to satisfy the conditions set out at Section 28 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which sets out a conditional prohibition for subsidies that are awarded to “air carriers for the operation of routes“.
Victory for the Welsh Government in the Competition Appeal Tribunal
The case was heard in February 2026. In April 2026 the Competition Appeal Tribunal decided in favour of the Welsh Government, ruling that:
a) the issue of whether the airport was “ailing or insolvent” had been directly considered by the Welsh Government and it was not irrational to conclude the airport was a going concern, noting in part an earlier award the Welsh Government had made, worth up to £33m, between December 2023 and July 2024;
b) Sections 19 and 20 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 apply only where the purpose of the subsidy is to rescue or restructure an ailing or insolvent enterprise – these provisions do not apply to every subsidy given to an ailing or insolvent enterprise. As the Competition Appeal Tribunal had already found that the airport was not ailing or insolvent and the purpose of the subsidy was an equity focussed policy objective, rather than rescue or restructuring, it concluded Sections 19 and 20 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 were not engaged;
c) any challenge against how a public authority has considered the Subsidy Control Principles is to be evaluated against the legal standard in Judicial Review cases, which focusses upon procedure rather than merit, except in regard to issues relating to irrationality. In this case none of Bristol Airport Limited’s arguments demonstrated that “the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision maker”. Fundamentally irrationality is a high bar, requiring a challenger to show that there has been a material omission or a direct contradiction in the reasoning used in reaching a conclusion; and
d) in respect of Section 28 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, the test is only applied at the point a subsidy is given directly to an air carrier.
The ruling means that public authorities have now won all four subsidy control cases brought under Section 70(1) of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 so far. This led to questions being asked about whether the challenge regime suffers from an insufficient threat of jeopardy and whether reforms are needed.
Indeed, as Professor Andreas Stephan explains in Does the UK Subsidy Control regime have an effective enforcement mechanism?; “even where an interested party identifies a potentially unlawful subsidy, judicial review presents inherent limitations as an enforcement mechanism. It is a review of legality, not merits: the question is whether the authority made a lawful decision, not whether it was the right one… even an economically unsound subsidy may be deemed lawful if the authority’s reasoning falls within the bounds of what a reasonable body could conclude“.
Permission to Appeal rejected by the Competition Appeal Tribunal
On 28 April 2026 Bristol Airport Limited filed an application for permission to appeal the Judgment with the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Six grounds of appeal were put forward, arguing an appeal was required because the Competition Appeal Tribunal:
a) “failed to apply a sufficiently intense standard of review ” and explain its reasoning;
b) made an error in its interpretation of sections 19 and 20 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022;
c) failed to properly consider whether Cardiff International Airport was “ailing or insolvent”;
d) made an error in reaching the view that the subsidy was not for restructuring;
e) erred in how it approached the application of the Subsidy Control Principles; and
f) incorrectly applied section 28 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022.
Each ground was rejected in a Reasoned Order published by the Competition Appeal Tribunal published on 28 May 2026.
Why can Bristol Airport Limited be expected to apply directly to the Court of Appeal?
If the Competition Appeal Tribunal refuses permission to appeal its own decision, the Appellant is able to file an Appellants’ Notice (Form N161) directly with the Court of Appeal under the Civil Procedure Rules. This must happen within 14 days of receiving the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decision to refuse permission.
Indeed, there is precedent in subsidy control law, in the case of Mr Aubrey Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority, an application for permission to appeal was rejected by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Court of Appeal later granted permission on all grounds and the case is expected to be heard in the coming weeks.
Therefore, having signalled its intention to challenge the decision it seems likely that Bristol Airport Limited will now file an Appellants’ Notice in the Court of Appeal.
Conclusion
The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Bristol Airport v Welsh Ministers is the most high profile subsidy control ruling so far. It is also controversial with many practitioners expecting a much more granular assessment as to whether each of the Subsidy Control Principles had been satisfied and surprised by the narrow interpretation applied to the scope of the rescue and restructuring provisions within the Subsidy Control Act 2022. Conversely, many public authorities will have welcomed the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal because it provided confirmation that only a demonstrable flaw in reasoning such as reliance upon irrelevant considerations, applying a key step without evidence or serious logical error will support a successful challenge. Should the Court of Appeal agree to hear Bristol Airport Limited’s appeal then the rationale applied will be carefully studied by practitioners and this will help clarify how the law should be applied.
Ward Hadaway is one of the UK’s leading law firms for subsidy control advice and has specialists with experience of successfully advising upon major Subsidy Control cases as well as referrals to the Competition and Markets Authority.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
