Judgment of the Tribunal further to the Applicants' application for review under s. 70 of the Subsidy Control Act (SCA) of a decision of the Respondent to grant Camelot (the First Intervener) the use of £70.21m (the Decision). The Applicants alleged the Decision constituted a subsidy within the meaning of s. 2 SCA. The Applicants sought declarations as well as a recovery order.
The Tribunal concluded that the Decision was consistent with normal market conditions under the commercial market operator principle (CMO principle) meaning that there was no subsidy within the meaning of s. 2 SCA.
Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it was not necessary to consider the Respondent's alternative arguments that the Decision did not involve specific financial assistance granted through public resources. However, in considering those subsidiary points anyway, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged benefit to Camelot was provided through public resources, including the forgoing of revenue otherwise due, and that it was specific. As such, had the Tribunal reached a different conclusion on the CMO principle, it would have concluded that the Decision was indeed a subsidy requiring consideration of the subsidy control principles before it was granted.
The Tribunal then considered relief (even though it was not necessary to do so) so as to address the question of the alleged delay in issuing proceedings on the part of the Applicants. The Tribunal concluded that proceedings should have been issued on or before 15 February 2025 or, if further information had been required, it should have been requested by the Applicants before that point. On that basis, if the Applicants had been entitled to relief, the Tribunal would have been inclined to refuse it.
