Bristol Airport expected to seek permission to challenge Cardiff Airport’s subsidy case victory

Martin Shipton

Bristol Airport is expected to apply directly to the Court of Appeal for the right to challenge the decision that the Welsh Government was within its rights to subsidise Cardiff Airport.

Last week the Competition Appeal Tribunal refused to allow Bristol to take its case to the Court of Appeal, saying that none of its six arguments stood up to scrutiny and accusing Bristol of adopting a “kitchen sink” approach to the case.

The Welsh Government has owned Cardiff Airport since 2013. The airport serves more than a million passengers each year.

In April 2025, the Welsh Government awarded a grant of £205.2m to Cardiff Airport to be used towards a range of costs including incentives to airlines to open new routes at the airport, a new hangar village and improved facilities for passengers.

The value of the subsidy required the Welsh Government to refer the proposed award to the UK Government’s Subsidy Advice Unit.

Bristol Airport is only 27 miles as the crow flies – but 61.5 miles by road – from Cardiff Airport and its owners felt that their commercial interests were affected by the Welsh Government’s decision to award this large subsidy.

Solicitor Alexander Rose of subsidy control specialists Ward Hadaway has written an article for his firm’s website in which he states: “In July 2025, Bristol Airport Ltd brought subsidy control proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the Welsh Government had failed:

* to conclude that Cardiff Airport was an “ailing or insolvent enterprise”;

* to satisfy the requirements of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 that additional steps should be taken when providing rescue or restructuring support to “ailing or insolvent” enterprises;

* to satisfy the Act’s requirement that there should be proper consideration of each of the Subsidy Control Principles and reasonable grounds to conclude that each of the principles is met; and

* to satisfy the conditions set out in the Act that there should be a conditional prohibition for subsidies that are awarded to “air carriers for the

The Competition Appeal Tribunal decided in favour of the Welsh Government, ruling that:

* the issue of whether the airport was “ailing or insolvent” had been directly considered by the Welsh Government and it was not irrational to conclude the airport was a going concern, noting in part an earlier award the Welsh Government had made, worth up to £33m, between December 2023 and July 2024;

* Sections 19 and 20 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 apply only where the purpose of the subsidy is to rescue or restructure an ailing or insolvent enterprise – these provisions do not apply to every subsidy given to an ailing or insolvent enterprise. As the Competition Appeal Tribunal had already found that the airport was not ailing or insolvent and the purpose of the subsidy was an equity focussed policy objective, rather than rescue or restructuring, it concluded Sections 19 and 20 of the Act were not engaged;

* Any challenge against how a public authority has considered the Subsidy Control Principles is to be evaluated against the legal standard in Judicial Review cases, which focusses upon procedure rather than merit, except in regard to issues relating to irrationality. In this case none of Bristol Airport’s arguments demonstrated that “the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision maker”; and

* The test of whether an unlawful subsidy to an air carrier has been made is only applied at the point when such a subsidy is actually given.

Reforms

Rose stated: “The ruling means that public authorities have now won all four subsidy control cases brought under Section 70(1) of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 so far. This led to questions being asked about whether the challenge regime suffers from an insufficient threat of jeopardy and whether reforms are needed.

“The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Bristol Airport v Welsh Ministers is the most high profile subsidy control ruling so far. It is also controversial with many practitioners expecting a much more granular assessment as to whether each of the Subsidy Control Principles had been satisfied and surprised by the narrow interpretation applied to the scope of the rescue and restructuring provisions within the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

“Conversely, many public authorities will have welcomed the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal because it provided confirmation that only a demonstrable flaw in reasoning such as reliance upon irrelevant considerations, applying a key step without evidence or serious logical error will support a successful challenge.

“Should the Court of Appeal agree to hear Bristol Airport Limited’s appeal then the rationale applied will be carefully studied by practitioners and this will help clarify how the law should be applied.”