Competition Appeals Tribunal hands down ruling on confidentiality ring in dispute over loans made by combined authority

A Manchester property developer has gained access to the confidentiality ring surrounding loans made by Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) to a rival firm.

Joel Weis, son of litigant Aubrey Weis, who heads a family property firm, was granted access by the Competition Appeals Tribunal only to limited specific parts of the confidentiality ring order bundle and must not further use or disclose these under threat of penal sanctions.

Tribunal chairman Hodge Malek KC heard GMCA had loaned £120m to property companies owned by Renaker - a rival to Mr Weis - for regeneration developments including affordable housing.

Mr Weis argued under section 70(1) of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA) that the loans would not have been granted by a commercial operator or that the loans have been concluded on non-market terms and distorted the proper operation of the relevant market in and around Manchester.

He sought a declaration that the authority had granted an unlawful subsidy to Renaker and an order prohibiting this, and/or quashing of the loan arrangements.

The loans were made under the Greater Manchester Housing Investment Loans Fund by the authority.

Aubrey Weis said he wanted Joel Weis to have access to the confidentiality ring so that he could best decide on the course of litigation over the dispute.

But GMCA maintained that the requested disclosure comprised certain documents that contained third party confidential information which could not be disclosed to the Weis Group beyond its legal advisers within a confidentiality ring.

The authority said disclosure of commercially sensitive information between competitors would constitute a serious breach of the Chapter I prohibition.

At an earlier hearing Mr Justice Peter Roth had said the confidentiality ring should be limited to external lawyers and any experts  appointed by the Weis Group to allow it an informed view as to whether and to what extent the documents disclosed were confidential in nature and whether any documents were required to be shared with Weis Group to progress the case.

Joel Weis said a representative of his companies should be admitted to the confidentiality ring to enable his father to instruct his legal team.

Mr Malek said: “In normal circumstances, an application like the present giving a competitor direct access to information belonging to a competitor would be refused.

“But given the importance of lawyers for the appellant receiving informed instructions, I am willing to admit, to a limited extent, Mr Joel Weis to the confidentiality ring as the appellant’s client’s representative, only in respect of the documents contained at Tabs 3 to 5 of the [confidentiality ring] Bundle filed with the Tribunal for this hearing.”

He explained in his ruling: “I have to balance the undesirability of Mr Joel Weis having access to this material against what is fair to Mr Aubrey Weis in terms of being able to advance these proceedings properly and have the requisite information to give instructions as to whether to proceed with the litigation and if so in what direction.

“I also have to take into account and balance the interests of the third party Renaker, who whilst not formally a party to these proceedings, has a major stake in their outcome and it is their confidential information that is sought to be reviewed by Mr Joel Weis.”

Both Aubrey and Joel Weis were required to provide undertakings to not use the Renaker loans material for any other purpose and not to disclose it other than to their legal team.

Joel Weis would be allowed to view the material only at his lawyers’ office, where a witness statement would be taken if needed.

Mr Malek said: ”Lawyers will no doubt impress upon the appellant and his client representative that an undertaking to the Tribunal is an important commitment and the terms of any such undertaking must be strictly complied with in all circumstances.

“Accordingly, Mr Aubrey Weis and Mr Joel Weis are on notice that the breach of the terms of an undertaking is a serious matter and that serious consequences including penal consequences may be attendant to any such breach.”

Commenting on the case, Joseph Barrett KC of 11KBW - who appeared for Aubrey Weis - said: “The judgment, and the CAT’s earlier [case management] rulings in respect of disclosure and confidentiality ring arrangements, provide important guidance on how issues of disclosure of, and access to, commercially confidential information are likely to handled by the CAT in subsequent challenges under the SCA.”

Mark Smulian