Competition Appeal Tribunal strikes out claims against council over regeneration funding

The proceedings involved a claim under the Competition Act 1998 and an application for review under section 70 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

The proposed grants are to hospitality operator STACK for the redevelopment of a site on Newgate Street and The Auckland Project for a hotel development in the town's marketplace.

The CAT’s decision follows a hearing on on 15 April 2026.

As regards the subsidy claim, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to review the proposed grants because Durham County Council had not yet taken a final decision to grant either subsidy.

The Tribunal said: “The correct interpretation of s. 70(1) in respect of an individual subsidy is…., in our judgment, that an application for review to the Tribunal may be made once the relevant authority has taken a formal, final decision to give a subsidy, or to provide assistance which the applicant considers to be a subsidy, even if the authority disputes that characterisation.

“Section 70(1) does not provide for a review by the Tribunal of any earlier stage in the decision-making process leading up to that decision. In that regard our conclusion differs from the view expressed by the Tribunal in the last sentence of §152 of the judgment in the Weis case.”

It added: “The point at which a final decision to give a subsidy is taken will be fact-specific in any case. In some cases, that decision may be coterminous with the actual grant of the subsidy, or financial assistance said to be a subsidy. In other cases, the decision may precede the actual grant of the subsidy, for example where a final decision is taken by the authority, but authority is then delegated to the responsible officer of that authority to execute the relevant agreements that constitute the grant of the subsidy.”

Applying this to the proceedings, the Tribunal said it was common ground that Durham had not taken a final decision in relation to either of the proposed grants.

The subsidy claim was therefore struck out, rather than stayed as requested by the claimants’ counsel.

“A far preferable course is for the claimants if so advised to file fresh applications for review following the final decisions on each grant (if final subsidy decisions are indeed taken), on the basis of the timetable specified in s. 71 and Rule 98A,” the Tribunal said.

As regards the Competition Act 1998 claim, which alleged breaches of the prohibitions in Chapter I and Chapter II, the Tribunal refused the claimants’ application to amend and struck out the claim in the hearing.

The claimants had sought to amend their claim form as per the second amended claim form.

However, reliance on the second amended claim form was abandoned in the hearing, the Tribunal noted.

It rejected the claimants’ request for a further opportunity to amend the claim form and therefore granted Durham’s application to strike out the claim.

The judgment can be viewed here.