The Great Manchester Combined Authority ("GMCA") has successfully defended a subsidy control challenge in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") concerning loans provided to property developer Renaker for large-scale residential regeneration projects in Manchester.
The claim concerned loans of £70.8 million to Trinity Developments (Manchester) Limited ("Trinity"), and £69.2 million to New Jackson (Contour) Investments Limited ("Jackson"). The loans were made under the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loans Fund by GMCA. Trinity and Jackson are special purpose vehicles engaged in developing high-rise residential towers and are both are part of the broader "Renaker Group." Trinity and Jackson are ultimately owned and operated by Mr. Daren Whitaker.
In its judgment made on 24 July 2025, the CAT dismissed the judicial review claim brought by Mr Aubrey Weis which alleged that financial assistance by GMCA breached the 'commercial market operator' ("CMO") principle under the Subsidy Control Act 2022 ("SCA") and so gave rise to an unlawful subsidy under the UK's new domestic subsidy control regime. Counsel for Mr Weis argued that the loans were made on non-market terms that no commercial market operator would have offered, thereby distorting proper and fair competition in the Manchester property market.
The following three issues were determined by the CAT:
Issue 1: Subsidy Decision and Timing
The first issue was whether a subsidy decision had been made within the meaning of section 70 of the SCA, and, if so, when that decision was taken. The CAT confirmed that a subsidy decision under section 70 had been made by GMCA when its committee approved the loans on 22 March 2024. However, the CAT emphasised that it would not consider that decision in isolation but would examine the entire lending process (including due diligence, the development of loan terms, and internal discussions) to assess whether the loans amounted to financial assistance conferring an economic advantage.
Issue 2: Commercial Market Operator (CMO) Test
The second issue was whether the loans would have been approved by a CMO and whether the interest rates and other charges reflected market terms. On this point, the CAT held that GMCA had acted rationally and that the process was not inherently defective. It found that the lending was guided by experienced officers and panels. Despite the inherent risks in development lending, the CAT accepted that the loans were well structured, supported by strong security and low loan-to-value ratios, making full recovery likely even in the event of default. It concluded that the terms, including interest rates, reflected those a commercial lender would have accepted.
Issue 3: Duty of Candour
The third issue was whether GMCA had breached its duty of candour and, if so, in what respects and with what consequences. Having carefully reviewed each specific criticism of the witness evidence and GMCA's response, the CAT found no breach of that duty.
The full judgment is available on the CAT's website and can be found here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
