Will Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority be the first subsidy control case to be heard by the Supreme Court?

The long-running case of Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Look across the skyline of Greater Manchester and you will see many skyscrapers which have been built by the development company Renaker. This includes high-rise developments such as Deansgate Square, Colliers Yard and Vista River Gardens. Many of these prestigious developments have benefited from public funded loans awarded by the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loans Fund (GMHILF).

The Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loans Fund

The GMHILF was established in 2015 with the aim of accelerating, unlocking and increasing the construction of new homes across Greater Manchester by addressing gaps in the commercial property lending market. In many ways, GMHILF has been a success. Indeed,  it has helped support the delivery of more than 11,000 homes.

However Place North West reports that more than half of the £940m invested by the GMHILF has benefited the developer Renaker, with the Manchester Evening News suggesting that the amount could be as high as £615m. That would mean Renaker linked companies have benefited from over 65% of all sums invested.

The challenge brought by Aubrey Weis

Aubrey Weis is a Salford-based property tycoon. As the owner of the property developer the Weis Group, he is in competition with the Renaker Group.

He has a track record of bringing litigation against public authorities in the local area that he believes have impacted his businesses.  Some of these actions have been successful. For example, in February 2026 he won a high court judicial review challenge contesting Manchester City Council’s refusal to permit the demolition of two warehouses that were blocking the Weis Group’s delivery of the Park Place development on Great Jackson Street in Manchester.

In terms of the GMHILF, Aubrey Weis has become increasingly concerned about the proportion of loans that have been awarded to Renaker by Greater Manchester Combined Authority, leading to him instructing his lawyers to issue proceedings under Section 70 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

His challenge is against Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s decision to award two loans to Renaker linked companies.   The first of these loans was valued at £70.8m and was proposed to be awarded to Trinity Developments (Manchester) Limited towards the construction of Trinity Islands (a large complex which includes four towers with between 39 and 60 storeys alongside the River Irwell) whilst the second loan was valued at £69.2m and was to be awarded to New Jackson (Contour) Investments Limited towards the construction of a 988 unit development called Contour New Jackson to the South of the City Centre.

The central claim made by Aubrey Weis was that each loan was made using public funds and was awarded on sub-commercial terms. Therefore each of the two loans ought to have been treated as subsidy under the Subsidy Control Act 2022.  As no steps had been taken by Greater Manchester Combined Authority to align the measures with at least one of the exempt routes set out in the Subsidy Control Act 2022, both loans should be regarded as unlawful.

He also argued that, in making the decision, GMCA had misdirected itself by failing to give appropriate consideration to comparative commercial rates, risk concentrations and local scheme viability.  Much of the allegation of misdirection was based on the argument that the decision to make the award was taken on 22 March 2024, rather than when the legal commitment of the loans took place in November 2024. As a result Aubrey Weis submitted that, at the time the decision was made, GMCA had not considered all material factors, such as whether the loans might satisfy the commercial market operator principle and only did so after the decision to award the loans had been made.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority regarded there to be no breach of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, arguing that no subsidy arose from either loan because both loans were awarded on commercial terms.

Perhaps as a result of the ‘undue delay’ arguments around judicial review that were raised in the Bulb case, Weis submitted the notice of appeal in July 2024, four months before the legal commitment of the loans, which were only entered into on 22 November 2024.  This gave ample time for Greater Manchester Combined Authority to build up evidence that the terms of the loans aligned with commercial practice.

Stay up to date with:

• Trending Topics
• Latest Insights
• Upcoming Events
• Company Updates

Follow us on LinkedIn

Take Me There

The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling in the Weis Case

In a hearing conducted between 27^th and 29^th May 2025, Aubrey Weis’s legal team focussed on the process that had been used to reach the decision to enter into the loan.

In particular, it was emphasised that decision makers at Greater Manchester Combined Authority had given approval on 22 March 2024 for the loans to be awarded “subject to due diligence and legal view and documentation“.   Detailed consideration of whether the terms of the loans aligned with commercial practice had not been undertaken at that point and was only looked afterwards, as part of the due diligence process.

In July 2025, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Hodge Malek KC, Sir Iain McMillan CBE FRSE DL and Timothy Sawyer CBE) found in favour of Greater Manchester Combined Authority, concluding that each of the two loans from the GMHILF had been awarded on commercial terms.  By aligning the Commercial Market Operator principle, each loan did not amount to ‘subsidy’ and therefore was not capable of being considered an unlawful subsidy under the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

In doing so, the Competition Appeal Tribunal noted that “neither party filed any expert evidence on the key issue between them as to whether the 2024 Renaker Loans were on commercial terms within the sense provided in section 3(2) of the Act“.  However the “Tribunal using its expertise, including the two members of the panel with extensive banking and lending experience, was able to understand the process and form a clear assessment as to the terms of the 2024 Renaker Loans“.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s evaluation was not limited to merely reviewing the terms of the loans, instead it scrutinised the entire process implemented by the public authority including the internal records documenting the different stages leading up to the approval, as well as the due diligence and the development of the final terms of the loans.

What that means for public authorities is that subsidy control assessment is not merely a gateway review. It needs to be firmly incorporated into the decision making process.

Although the Competition Appeal Tribunal was ultimately satisfied that the loans could be accepted as being on commercial terms, the process used to assess the compliance of the loans was closely scrutinised.

The Court of Appeal ruling

Weis submitted an appeal. In June 2026, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Nugee, Lord Justice Zacaroli and Lord Justice Miles) again decided in favour of Greater Manchester Combined Authority, finding that there had been no error of law in the original decision and that the Competition Appeal Tribunal had been entitled to reach a view for itself whether the loans constituted subsidy.

In doing so, the Court of Appeal states that “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” however the Court of Appeal noted that in such circumstances “there might be grounds to pursue judicial review proceedings“.

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court

Declan Carey from the BBC reported in late September 2026 that Aubrey Weis has applied to the UK’s highest court for a review of the decision. At this stage it appears that no decision has been reached as to whether to permit the appeal.

Lessons that can be learned from the Weis litigation (so far)

There are lessons that public authorities and those seeking to challenge the award of public sector financial assistance can learn from this litigation at this time.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority was responsible for the GMHILF and its officials were closely involved in all stages of the funding process. However subsidy control seems to have been considered towards the end of the loan assessment process.

This is not unusual, at that stage funding proposals are more developed and therefore it is easier to draw firm conclusions. Furthermore, in this instance there had been several previous loans made to companies within the same business group.

However, had subsidy control been considered in more detail at the outset and then developed as the loan application progressed it would have been easier for GMCA to have swiftly seen off this litigation.  Fundamentally, compliance with the Commercial Market Operator should never be assumed. It needs to evidenced and the process of building up a case starts early on in project development.

When it came to building up an argument for compliance, GMCA applied different approaches to show that the loans were commercial. This resulted in each being assessed by the Competition Appeal Tribunal and consideration as to how these different approaches inter-acted. In retrospect a better approach might have been to focus on a single route to demonstrate compliance.

Potential challengers will note that bringing proceedings before the loans were committed gave GMCA ample time to build up its evidence trail.  Weis’s lawyers also focussed heavily upon the decision-making process of the GMCA, but the Court of Appeal was clear that whilst process is important it is not the ultimate object of the regime, therefore a flawed paper trail does not automatically create a subsidy if the underlying transaction is commercial.

Conclusion

Aubrey Weis is aiming to take his subsidy control challenge against Greater Manchester Combined Authority all the way to the Supreme Court – a reminder for every public authority that seemingly routine awards of public funding can quickly escalate into long running litigation.  To counter this, those developing projects within public authorities should always look to attend to subsidy control compliance early on, bringing in additional expertise if and when needed.  Assumptions should be checked and double checked, during the appraisal process, with evidence collected along the way.  Where there is the risk of a challenge then relevant expertise should be brought in to ensure there is a robust audit trail.  If you’re contemplating bringing a challenge, then this case gives clues as to how construct an argument and identifies where the focus of the challenge should lie.

Ward Hadaway is one of the UK’s leading law firms for subsidy control advice and can support you in the development of projects, CMA referrals and handling litigation. Our lawyers can help you if your public authority is on the cusp of a subsidy control challenge or if you are a business that is concerned that a rival has received an unlawful subsidy.