DLA Piper has secured a significant win for its client, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The GMCA, also represented by Aidan Robertson KC, successfully persuaded the CAT that lending terms agreed with a borrower were legitimate, standard commercial terms and, therefore, not considered a subsidy.
The case concerned allegations brought by Aubrey Weis, a Manchester property developer, in Mr Aubrey Weis v GMCA [2025] CAT 41, that GBP120 million worth of loans by the GMCA were unlawful subsidies. The GMCA argued that the loans were not subsidies because they were granted on arm’s length terms, at commercial rates.
To support his allegation, Mr Weis alleged that there was a ‘cosy relationship’ between the GMCA and the developer and flawed procedures which resulted in loans being granted that would never have been approved in the commercial sector, on terms that were well below commercial terms. He also made unjustified claims of breach of candour on the part of the GMCA’s staff. This required an exhaustive explanation of the GMCA’s procedures for making loans before the CAT.
The CAT, which handed down its judgment yesterday (24 July 2025), found the lending was made following a “perfectly rational” process and on terms which “cannot be fairly categorised as low or obviously below market or commercial rates”.
This is the second subsidy control case in the CAT since the Subsidy Control Act 2022 came into force, resolving important questions regarding the definition of a subsidy under the new legislation and particularly, the application of the commercial market operator principle in section 3(2) which has not previously been considered by the Courts.
The DLA Piper team was led by Competition partner Sam Szlezinger and was supported by Legal Director Chloe Cumber and Associate Tiffany McConaghy.
Sam Szlezinger, Competition partner at DLA Piper comments: “We welcome the judgment as an example of the CAT, including sector specialists, making a practical and reasoned judgment. It will give comfort to local authorities making future lending decisions and will offer sensible guidance to those relying on the commercial market operator principle. The CAT accepted that our clients are highly experienced lending professionals who have established, rigorous and appropriate procedures for the grant of loans and that they adhered to them in this case. As a result, the terms agreed with the borrower were commercial ones without any hint of a subsidy. I’m particularly pleased that the allegation of breach of candour was completely rejected”.