THOMAS v DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (2026) CAT 47 holds that under Section 70(1) of the SUBSIDY CONTROL ACT 2022 an APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A SUBSIDY DECISION might be made only once the authority had taken a FORMAL FINAL DECISION to give a subsidy ( or to provide assistance which the applicant considered to be a subsidy, even if the authority disputed that characterisation). Section 70(1) did NOT grant the Tribunal jurisdiction to review any earlier decision in the decision-making process , such as a provisional or “ in principle “ decision.

An individual Director does NOT have carte blanche to seek to implement a dissenting view by any means he thinks necessary, however covert or disloyal. So rules the Supreme Court in SAXON WOODS INVESTMENTS LTD v COSTA ( 2026 ) UKSC 21.

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.

A 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.

Zenobe 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.

Proof that a director’s CONDUCT was, in some non-trivial degree, responsible for the causes of a company becoming insolvent, is NOT a jurisdictional pre-condition to the making of a DISQUALIFICATION ORDER under Section 6 of the Directors Disqualification Act 1986. So held in SoS for Business & Trade v Greensill (2026) EWHC 639 (Ch).

DBT statutory Guidance, published on 6 March 2026, details how “ significant influence or control “ should be interpreted in relation to (1) companies and (2) LLPs.

A subsidy control challenge failed, including on the basis of DELAY, in NEW LOTTERY CO LTD v GAMBLING COMMISSION ( 2026 ) CAT 14. THE CAT held that there was NO SUBSIDY, because the COMMERCIAL MARKET OPERATOR ( CMO ) PRINCIPLE , developed in the State Aid era applied, referring at paras 67-92, to case law on the CMO Principle, including the Sky Blue Sports cases in the Court of Appeal and CJEU cases. There was consistency with normal market conditions. Bacon J gives guidance on how the CMO Principle applies in cases where a public authority is pursuing both public policy and commercial objectives, and where there is no actual market comparator.

Streamlined routes may be made under Section 10 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022. They enable public authorities to award subsidies without the requirements to assess them against the Subsidy Control Principles and notify the Subsidy Advice Unit. There are currently streamlined  routes for  Research, Development and Innovation, Energy Usage, and Local Growth. The Department for Business and Trade has now published GUIDANCE on two new streamlined routes ARTS and CULTURE, and COMMUNITY and REGENERATION.

Sections 2-4 inclusive of the Subsidy Control ACT 2022 define “ subsidy”. It includes specific financial assistance which confers an ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE on an enterprise where the benefit to the enterprise is provided in terms that are “ more favourable “ to the enterprise than the terms that might reasonably have been expected to have been  “ available on the market “ to the enterprise. BICKNELL v NHS NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ICB ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 21 confirms that in competition law  one criterion for determining “ economic “ is whether the entity PARTICIPATES IN A MARKET.