Local Government Reorganisation 2026
Read our exclusive guide providing insight into the challenges that senior legal professionals are facing, alongside a step-by-step look at the work they will need to complete to ensure a smooth transition.
March 16, 2026
Local Government Reorganisation 2026
When is a subsidy decision actually made?
- Details
Alex Kynoch and the Subsidy team at Browne Jacobson dive into the Competition Appeals Tribunal judgment of the point at which a ‘decision’ has been made.
The judgment of the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) in Mr Graham Thomas and Others v Durham County Council provides much needed clarity on the question of when a subsidy ‘decision’ has been made and so the clock starts for challenges.
The question
Setting aside broader competition law matters, the key subsidy question for the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to review a subsidy decision under section 70(1) of the SCA where only a provisional or "in principle" decision has been taken, and the public authority had yet to reach a conclusion.
The Tribunal’s analysis
The Tribunal's prior judgment in Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority was a key starting point. In that case, a decision in principle to grant loans had been taken on 22 March 2024, but due diligence was still ongoing and GMCA denied that a reviewable subsidy decision had been taken. Mr Weis nevertheless filed his subsidy appeal on 7 June 2024 seeking an expedited review.
The Tribunal in Weis held that although the borrowers did not have an enforceable right to financial assistance until the date of entry into the loan agreements, this did not mean that there was no challengeable subsidy decision before then. It was concluded that the subsidy decision within the meaning of section 70 was taken on the date of the in-principle decision.
In Thomas, it was confirmed that a reviewable decision under section 70(1) may precede the execution of formal legal documents such as a loan or grant agreement. However, the requirement under section 70(1) for the public authority to have taken a "decision to give a subsidy" cannot be met where that decision is only a provisional or an "in principle" decision that is subject to further consideration and review itself.
In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal focused on four key reasons:
- The SCA's statutory scheme requires that a public authority undertakes a subsidy control assessment before deciding to give a subsidy. It does not make sense to apply the SCA’s scheme to provisional decisions.
- Reviewing provisional decisions would be impractical as it would be difficult (if not impossible) for the Tribunal to effectively review a decision that had not yet been made.
- The pre-action information regime supports a "final decision" approach. Section 70(1) is not intended to be operative in the wake of a provisional decision.
- The time limits cannot operate against a provisional decision.
The outcome
The Tribunal took the clear view that the Council had not taken a final decision to grant two of the grants and so concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review either of those proposed grants under section 70(1).
The Tribunal struck the claim out rather than staying it. There was no clear timeframe for a final decision on either grant, and any fresh subsidy claim would require comprehensive rewriting to reflect the final terms and the Council’s assessment under the subsidy control principles. The Tribunal advised that once final decisions have been made, the Claimant could file fresh applications for review pursuant to Section 71 and rule 98A.
Key takeaways
- Only a formal, final decision to give a subsidy triggers the CAT's jurisdiction under section 70(1) – not a provisional or conditional decision.
- That said, a reviewable decision can be taken before the beneficiary acquires an enforceable legal right to the money.
- Whether a decision is truly final will depend on whether what remains outstanding is:
(a) administrative formality; or
(b) ongoing (and substantive) deliberation.
- Public authorities need to be attentive to internal decision-making processes and note when the process moves from provisional to final. Once final, the windows for challenge and entry on the database open.
- Prospective challengers should not rush to court before a final decision is taken. If they do, they are risking an immediate strike-out. Conversely, challenges should still be brought promptly once that reviewable decision is made to avoid being timed out. We expect many subsidy cases will hinge on whether a reviewable decision has taken place given the short timescales for challenge and broad range of decision-making processes.
- Different points in the decision-making process may be deemed to be reviewable depending on whether a subsidy or no-subsidy approach is taken by the authority. This is because a no-subsidy decision may have fewer outstanding points to be addressed (such as a subsidy principle assessment of compliance), leading to that being a more ‘final’ decision. Again, we expect this to provide fertile ground for challenges.
Browne Jacobson has one of the largest dedicated subsidy control teams in the UK, led by Alex Kynoch. We advise all tiers of government and subsidy recipients on subsidies and clients value our pragmatic, solution-focused advice. For more information regarding subsidy control law, please contact our specialist team.
Alex Kynoch is a Partner at Browne Jacobson.
Must read
Practical impact of the Procurement Act 2023 – the challenges, the benefits and the legal lacunas
In the second of three articles for Local Government Lawyer on the Procurement Act 2023 one year after it went live, Katherine Calder and Victoria Fletcher from DAC Beachcroft consider some of its practical impact and implications, including how to choose the right regime, how authorities are tackling the notice requirements, considerations when making modifications, and setting and monitoring…
Cyber Security and Resilience Bill: Why Local Authorities Cannot Afford to Wait
The UK Government’s proposed Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is likely to mark a significant shift in regulatory expectations. Jonathan Askin, Partner at Hugh James, explores the reasons why.
Procurement Act 2023 – One Year On - When it starts to get contentious
In the third and final article of this series, Jo Dumphy and Katherine Calder from DAC Beachcroft consider some of the challenges facing suppliers and contracting authorities in bringing and defending potential claims following the introduction of the Procurement Act 2023, and highlight the practical considerations when authorities come across them.
Automatic suspensions under the Procurement Act 2023: the first case
The test for lifting the automatic suspension under Section 102 of the Procurement Act 2023 (“PA23”) has been considered by the Courts for the first time, resulting in confirmation that the new test is significantly different to the American Cyanamid test and the suspension being maintained pending trial. Ed Williams looks at why.
Sponsored articles
Unlocking legal talent
Jonathan Bourne of Damar Training sets out why in-house council teams and law firms should embrace apprenticeships.
Walker Morris supports Tower Hamlets Council in first known Remediation Contribution Order application issued by local authority
Walker Morris has supported Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (LBTH) in issuing what is believed to be one of the first Remediation…
Lawyer (Contracts)
£55,323 - £65,181 per annum
Principal Lawyer – Litigation and Licensing
£61,325 - £70,706 per annum
Principal Lawyer – Contracts
£61,325 - £70,706 per annum
Locums
Poll
Managing the Commercial Market Operator (CMO) principle in Subsidy Control - DWF
15-07-2026 11:00 am
15-07-2026 11:00 am
Navigating the Procurement Act 2023 - Exclusion, Debarment & Supplier Risk Explained - Capital Law
01-12-2026
01-12-2026
Unpicking the Procurement Act Episode 2: Exclusion and Debarment - 39 Essex Chambers
To Be Confirmed
To Be Confirmed
Unpicking the Procurement Act Episode 1: Overview and New Procedures - 39 Essex Chambers
To Be Confirmed
To Be Confirmed
Unpicking the Procurement Act Episode 4: Challenges and Remedies - 39 Essex Chambers
To Be Confirmed
To Be Confirmed








