WEIS v GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 825 concerns a challenge under the SUBSIDY CONTROL ACT 2022 to £120 million of loans given by the Authority It is held that there was no “ subsidy decision “ within the meaning of the Act.
PROCUREMENT OF CONTRACTS
June 30th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsPPN 024, issued in June 2026, concerns the PUBLIC INTEREST TEST and INSOURCING STRATEGY. The Guidance does not apply to local authorities, BUT they are encouraged to consider the approach as GOOD PRACTICE. The test should be considered before starting relevant service projects. This includes re-procurements which may result in a public contract under the Procurement Act 2023.
ASSETS OF COMMUNITY VALUE
June 26th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesHILL v SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DC ( 2026 ) UKFTT 942 ( GRC ) deals with the question of entitlement to payment of COMPENSATION under Regulation 14 of the Assets of Community Value ( England ) Regulations 2012.
SUBSIDY CONTROL REPORT
June 26th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Capital Finance and CompaniesA SUBSIDY ADVICE UNIT REPORT under Section 65 of the Subsidy Contro; Act 2022 published on 25 June 2026 following its first PERIODIC REVIEW reports on the effectiveness of the UK’s subsidy control regime and the impact on competition and investment in the UK.
CAPITAL FINANCE and COMPANIES
June 24th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Capital Finance and CompaniesZenobe Ltd v GEMA ( 2026) CAT 53 addresses the question whether or not there is a challengeable “ subsidy decision “ for the purposes of Section 70 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, when there is a step in the development of a Scheme, but not the making of the Scheme itself.
OMBUDSMEN
June 24th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Non Judicial ControlR ( Aina Khan Law Ltd ) v Legal Ombudsman ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 773 deals with the approach that the Administrative Court should take in reviewing a decision of an Ombudsman under a statutory scheme.
STREET TRADING
June 18th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Land, Goods and ServicesSINTES v TOWER HAMLETS LBC ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 752 concerns allegations of negligence and nuisance against the Council as licensing authority under the London Local Authorities Act 1990, and the Council’s private law assumption of responsibility and duty of care towards someone who tripped.
INTERPRETATION OF POLICIES
June 17th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationThe Court of Appeal summarises the law on the proper interpretation of Policies in R ( Ammori ) v SSHD ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 721, at paras 80/81 : (1) Policies in the field of public administration are to be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in the proper context; (2) The Context includes that they are not statutory texts; (3) They are not rules, but guides; (4) Policies are not to be read in a complicated or excessively analytical way; (5) Some polcies engage relatively specific language and others are expressed in much broader terms which may not require or lend themselves to the same level of legal analysis. The Court also addresses the correct approaches to the proportionality balance and the margin of appreciation at respectively paras 98-103and 104-116.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 ( EIR )
June 16th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureBRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ( 2026 ) UKFTT 877 ( GRC ) raises a question of considerable importance concerning the ambit of Reg 2 (2) of the EIR, and in particular its APPLICATION TO ENTITIES which, although operating in a commercial environment, perform FUNCTIONS within a a detailed statutory and regulatory framework governing the provision of ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE at a national level. The case concerned British Telecom ( BT ), found to be a public authority within Reg 2(2), and Openreach, a subsidiary of BT and a telecommunications infrastructure company, found NOT to be a public authority, within either Reg 2(2)©, the functional basis, or Reg 2(2)(d), the control basis. The Tribunal sets out the governing legal framework at paras 28-38 and the issues for determination at paras 39-44, and then its reasons and analysis at paras 45-224. BT is a public authority because it is entrusted under the applicable national law regime with the performance of services of public interest which have the requisite nontrivial nexus with the environment, and for that purpose is vested with SPECIAL POWERS going beyond the normal rules applicable between private persons. Openreach is NOT a public authority, because it is not itself vested with special powers and it is immaterial that as an operational fact it acts as BT’s agent, and determines in a genuinely autonomous manner the way it performs the relevant function.
STREET WORKS PERMITS
June 12th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureIn R ( THAMES WATER UTILITIES LTD ) v SWINDON BOROUGH COUNCIL ( 2026 ) EWHC 1348 ( Admin ) the claimant statutory undertaker applied for Judicial Review of the local highway authority’s decision to INCREASE THE FEES charged to the claimant for permits to carry out certain street works. The ISSUE was whether Regulation 32 of the TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PERMIT SCHEME ( England ) REGULATIONS 2007 permitted fees to be applied only to PRESCRIBED COSTS incurred in the CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR, or whether a permit authority could recover HISTORIC DEFICITS through increased fees in later years. The Court, considering the DoT’s statutory Guidance, holds that local highway authorities have NO POWER to increase the fees in order to cover past deficits. The statutory scheme requires the authority to endeavour to BALANCE COSTS AND FEES WITHIN A PARTICULAR YEAR, subject only to the possibility of carrying surpluses forward. Past deficits are relevant only insofar as they inform DECISIONS WHETHER ADHUSTMENTS HAD TO BE MADE TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE SCHEME, pursuant to regulation 29, to ensure a better balance in the future.