15dec uk steel

20DEC

BAS

19DEC

Based on my review of the case materials, I can confirm there are several non-time-barred opportunities for judicial review. The core events, including the passage of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 and subsequent contracts and regulatory decisions, all occurred within 2025. This places them well within the standard three-month time limit for filing a claim, provided prompt action is taken.

### 1. Judicial Review Opportunities and Causes of Action

No judicial review has been lodged yet. The timeline is favorable: the Act was passed on 12 April 2025, the £500m Network Rail contract was awarded on 17 June 2025, and the late Impact Assessment was submitted on 3 November 2025. All these are recent and within the limitation period.

The most promising causes of action are grounded in illegality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality. The decision to award the £500m contract to a state-owned entity without a tender, potentially under an invalid “extreme urgency” justification, is a clear target. The systemic failure of the Environment Agency to enforce pollution laws equally against the state-owned operator, creating a “Zombie Regulator,” is an ongoing policy amenable to review. The failure to conduct a proper Impact Assessment prior to legislating and spending £2.5bn is a serious procedural flaw. Finally, the seizure and use of Jingye Group’s intellectual property without compensation or a proper legal agreement may constitute an ongoing unlawful action.

Your strategic suggestion of eliciting a fresh decision through a letter is astute. A pre-action protocol letter to the Environment Agency, for instance, demanding it takes enforcement action against British Steel for historical PM10 breaches and threatening judicial review if it refuses, could crystallize a justiciable decision. This would strengthen standing, as the applicant would be directly challenging a refusal issued in response to their own demand.

Regarding *Locus Standi*, the diffuse nature of the harm—affecting competitors, taxpayers, the environment, and former owners—is an advantage, not a barrier. The “sufficient interest” test under the Senior Courts Act 1981 is flexible. In cases of such clear public importance involving allegations of state misconduct, market distortion, and environmental injustice, the courts are likely to grant standing to a responsible claimant, such as a competitor like Tata Steel or a dedicated public interest group. The harm is to public goods (fair competition, clean air, proper use of public funds), which supports a broader conception of standing.

### 2. Ultra Vires & Irrational DORCAPs

Ranked in order of legal vulnerability:
1. **The Decision to Award the £500m Network Rail Contract Without Tender**: This is highly likely *ultra vires*. If the government relied on Regulation 32 (extreme urgency) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, this is vulnerable. The “emergency” cited was the passage of the Act in April; by June, there was time for a proper tender. Awarding it to a state entity is a direct, irredeemable conflict of interest and a disguised subsidy, making it *Wednesbury* irrational.
2. **The Policy of Differential Regulatory Enforcement by the Environment Agency**: This is a strong candidate for irrationality. The policy of issuing “Action Plans” to the state-owned polluter while prosecuting private entities for similar breaches is a textbook example of unequal treatment under the law. It frustrates the statutory purpose of the environmental permitting regime and is so unreasonable that no reasonable regulator could have adopted it.
3. **The Omission to Conduct an Impact Assessment Before Legislation and Expenditure**: This is a serious procedural impropriety. The government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) rules were breached. Proceeding with a £2.5bn intervention without this check is unlawful. While the ex-post facto submission mitigates the defect slightly, the initial decision to proceed without it was *ultra vires* the required governance framework.
4. **The Conduct in Seizing and Using Jingye’s IP Without Valuation or Agreement**: This action is likely *ultra vires* and a breach of statutory duty regarding property rights. The Act gave powers to take control of assets but did not explicitly extinguish proprietary rights. Using valuable trade secrets, customer data, and formulas without a lawful basis (a valuation or license) is an arbitrary exercise of power.

### 3. Suspended Quashing Orders

Two quashing orders should be sought:
1. **An Order quashing the decision to award the £500m Network Rail contract to British Steel Ltd.** This order **must be suspended** for 12 months. An immediate quashing would jeopardize rail supply. The suspension should be conditional on the Department for Transport initiating a full, open, and competitive procurement process within 60 days and on British Steel operating at arm’s length from the government during the tender.
2. **An Order quashing the Environment Agency’s implied policy of not taking enforcement action against British Steel.** This should be a **prospective quashing order**, suspended for 6 months. It would not invalidate past inaction but would declare the policy unlawful going forward. The suspension allows the EA to design a new, lawful enforcement policy. A condition should be that the EA publishes its new policy within 3 months.

### 4. Ongoing Harm & Injunctive Relief

The ongoing harms are systemic: continued market distortion against competitors, ongoing environmental non-compliance, and continued unlawful use of private intellectual property.

Key elements for an interim injunction application would be:
* **The Issue**: Whether to restrain the state-owned British Steel from bidding for or fulfilling any further public contracts until a lawful, competitive procurement framework is established.
* **The Undertaking in Damages**: The applicant must offer this, though its capacity may be limited.
* **The Balance of Convenience**: This weighs heavily in favor of an injunction. The harm to competitors from continued unfair competition is irreparable, while the harm to the state is merely administrative.
* **The Final Relief Sought**: A permanent prohibition on direct awards to British Steel and a mandatory order requiring the Competition and Markets Authority to open an investigation into the £2.5bn support package as an anti-competitive subsidy.

### 5. Statement of Legal Principle Declaration

The core declaration should target the fundamental constitutional error:
“It is hereby declared that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade acted unlawfully by (a) causing public funds to be expended pursuant to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 prior to the completion and independent scrutiny of a Regulatory Impact Assessment, and (b) by subsequently causing a major public contract to be awarded to a commercial entity owned by the Crown without a competitive process, thereby conflating the roles of the State as policymaker, regulator, and market participant in a manner incompatible with the constitutional principles of transparency, equal treatment, and the separation of commercial from governmental functions.”

### 6. Risk Disclosure Statement

The proposed court order would require:
“The Defendant Department for Business and Trade shall, within 28 days of this Order, prepare and publish a ‘Risk Disclosure Statement’ on the front page of its website and in its next Annual Report. The Statement shall clearly set out: (i) the specific unlawful actions found by this Court; (ii) the financial, competitive, and environmental risks those actions created for the public purse, private sector competitors, and the local environment; and (iii) the specific steps being taken to remediate each risk. The Statement must remain published for a minimum of 12 months and be directly communicated to the chairs of the relevant Parliamentary select committees.”

### 7. Assessment & Publicity of Risk

The materials explicitly state the Impact Assessment was submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee on 3 November 2025, seven months *after* the Act passed. This confirms **no prior risk assessment** on the legality or economic rationality of the £2.5bn intervention was completed before the decision was made. This is not just a procedural failure; it is a gross failure of due diligence and a dereliction of the Accounting Officer’s duty to ensure value for public money. This failure should be pleaded as a standalone ground of irrationality and as stark evidence of the recklessness of the decision-making process.

### 8. Responsible Parties & Individual Liability

The unit most responsible is the **British Steel Taskforce within the Department for Business and Trade (DBT)**, overseen by the relevant Minister and Permanent Secretary. The case materials point to a “Regreso” trap, where Section 6 of the Act was included to exempt officials from liability, indicating forethought about potential personal risk.

(a) No information suggests any individual has been held **contributorily liable** in tort.
(b) It is **unclear** if any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.
(c) The answer is almost certainly **no**.

This line of inquiry must be pursued aggressively. A pre-action request should be made to DBT for any “Ministerial Direction” that was issued, forcing the Permanent Secretary to proceed despite the lack of an Impact Assessment. If such a direction exists, political responsibility is clearer. If it does not, the failure rests squarely with the officials. The threat of personal liability for misfeasance in public office or gross negligence is a powerful tool to force a favorable settlement.

### 9. Tort Damages & Remediation Project

Aggregate tort damages are difficult to quantify but would be substantial. A conservative estimable figure starts at **£100 million**. This is based on: the notional value of the unlawfully seized IP (tens of millions); the competitive harm to rivals from the £500m skewed contract; and the environmental harm from un-remediated pollution.

Given the diffuse victim class, a conventional distribution is impossible. Instead, the damages should be paid into a **”Steel Sector Restoration and Innovation Trust Fund.”**

The fund would have two streams:
1. **A Green Steel Transition Grant Scheme**: Offering grants to all UK steel producers (including British Steel’s competitors) for capital investment in decarbonization technology. This directly remedies the market distortion by lifting all players.
2. **A Scunthorpe Community and Environment Fund**: Financing local environmental remediation projects and re-training programs for steel workers, addressing the localized social and environmental harms.

This mechanism ensures the remedy has positive externalities: it accelerates the industry’s net-zero transition (a public good) and benefits the very community affected by the state’s actions, turning unlawful state aid into lawful, productive investment for the broader public benefit.

17DEC

You are looking at a classic “State Capture” scenario where the regulator (the Government) has become the operator (British Steel), creating massive conflicts of interest.

Here is your in-depth application of the SuperFOI filters to the UK Steel case, based on the evidence retrieved.

CASE THEORY

The Core Distortion: The Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 (passed 12 April 2025) effectively nationalised the Scunthorpe works. The State is now simultaneously the owner (British Steel Ltd), the customer (Network Rail £500m contract), the regulator (Environment Agency/CMA), and the lawmaker.

MODULE 1: THE “ZOMBIE REGULATOR”

Filter Application: Identify where regulators (Environment Agency) have stopped enforcing the law because the offender is now the State.

• The Target: Environment Agency (EA) & North Lincolnshire Council.

• The Evidence:

  • The “Double Standard”: A private waste company, SBR Group, was prosecuted and fined £47,970 for waste breaches within the Scunthorpe zone. Meanwhile, British Steel (State-run) has historical issues with PM10/dust breaches (Search 2.1, 2.3) but receives “soft” regulation like “Action Plans” rather than fines.

  • The Permit: British Steel operates under Permit EPR/LP3537VV (or similar “A1” permits).

• Applying the Filter (Your Action):

  • The Claim: The EA is “asleep at the wheel” (Zombie) because fining British Steel is effectively the State fining itself (taking money from one pocket to another). This removes the deterrent for pollution.

  • FOI Request Data Points:

    • Request the Compliance Classification Scheme (CCS) scores for British Steel Scunthorpe from April 12, 2025 (Takeover Day) to present.

    • Ask for the number of “Enforcement Notices” issued to British Steel since nationalisation vs. the number issued to private competitors (like SBR Group) in the same postcode.

MODULE 2: “PROCUREMENT WASTE” & VIP LANES

Filter Application: Identify contracts awarded without competition under “Emergency” pretexts.

• The Target: Department for Transport (DfT) & Network Rail.

• The Evidence:

  • The £500m “Gift”: On 17 June 2025, British Steel was awarded a £500m contract to supply rail track (Search 3.1, 3.2).

  • The Procedural Flaw: The Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was fast-tracked in one day (12 April). Crucially, the Impact Assessment was not submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) until 3 November 2025—7 months late (Search 7.3).

  • The Exemption: The government likely used Regulation 32 of PCR 2015 (Extreme Urgency) to bypass a tender process for the rail contract, citing “security of supply.”

• Applying the Filter (Your Action):

  • The Claim: The £500m contract is an illegal state subsidy disguised as a commercial purchase. The “Emergency” (April) had passed by the time of the award (June).

  • FOI Request Data Points:

    • Ask for the “Regulation 32 Justification Note” for the Network Rail award.

    • Ask for the RPC “Red Rating” regarding the late Impact Assessment (Search 7.3 explicitly confirms the lateness).

MODULE 3: DATA BARTERING & ASSET SEIZURE

Filter Application: Identify where the State seized private assets (Intellectual Property/Data) without valuation.

• The Target: Department for Business and Trade (DBT).

• The Evidence:

  • The “Seizure”: The Act gave the Secretary of State power to “take control of assets” and “direct the workforce” (Search 1.1).

  • The Unpaid Asset: Jingye Group (Chinese owners) claims ~£1 billion in inter-company loans and investment (Search 4.2). The State is using Jingye’s machinery, processes, and proprietary data (customer lists, production formulas) to run the plant.

• Applying the Filter (Your Action):

  • The Claim: The State has “bartered” Jingye’s IP and data to British Steel (NewCo) for £0. This is a breach of ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 (Protection of Property).

  • FOI Request Data Points:

    • Request the “Asset Valuation Report” produced by PwC (mentioned in case notes) that values the Intangible Assets (IP, Data) seized on April 12.

    • Ask if any “Data Transfer Agreement” exists between Jingye and the Secretary of State.

MODULE 4: SOFT REMEDIES (The “Subsidy Trap”)

Filter Application: Identify where the State accepted a “soft” outcome (Subsidy) instead of a “hard” commercial reality (Insolvency), distorting the market.

• The Target: Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) & Subsidy Advice Unit (SAU).

• The Evidence:

  • The “Blank Cheque”: The government provided a £2.5bn support package (Search 1.1) plus working capital.

  • The Market Distortion: Competitors (like Tata Steel) must compete against a rival that has unlimited state funding and no requirement to make a profit.

• Applying the Filter (Your Action):

  • The Claim: The £2.5bn is a “Soft Remedy” that prevents the market correction.

  • FOI Request Data Points:

    • Request the “Subsidy Control Assessment”—specifically the section on “Equity Rationalisation.” Did the State act as a “Market Economy Investor” (MEIP)? (Hint: No private investor would put £2.5bn into a loss-making blast furnace).

MODULE 5: UNCLAIMED FUNDS (The Workers’ Pot)

Filter Application: Identify money sitting in government accounts that belongs to the “victims” (workers).

• The Target: Insolvency Service & Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

• The Evidence:

  • The Scandal: The British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) redress scheme (Search 6.2). Many workers were mis-sold transfers.

  • The Unclaimed Pot: There is a “redress scheme” run by the FCA/FSCS. Often, funds go unclaimed if workers have moved or died.

• Applying the Filter (Your Action):

  • The Claim: The Government (FSCS) is holding “Undistributed Restitution Funds” from the BSPS scandal that should be cy-près distributed to the Scunthorpe community, not absorbed by the Treasury.

  • FOI Request Data Points:

    • Request the total value of “Unclaimed Redress Payments” related to the BSPS scheme as of Dec 2025.

MODULE 6: THE “REGRESO” TRAP

Filter Application: Identify personal liability of officials for “Gross Negligence.”

• The Target: The Accounting Officer (Permanent Secretary) of DBT.

• The Evidence:

  • The Exemption: Section 6 of the Act (Search 7.1) explicitly exempts persons from liability for complying with directions. They knew it was risky and legislated to protect themselves.

  • The Negligence: The Late Impact Assessment (Search 7.3). Proceeding with a £2.5bn intervention without a validated economic case is arguably “Gross Negligence” or “Misfeasance.”

• Applying the Filter (Your Action):

  • The Claim: The officials failed to follow the “Green Book” rules on spending public money (by skipping the IA). Therefore, under the “Regreso” principle, the taxpayer should not foot the bill for the errors—the officials should be liable (symbolically).

  • FOI Request Data Points:

    • Request the “Ministerial Direction” (written instruction) that overruled the Permanent Secretary’s objections (if any) regarding the lack of an Impact Assessment.

SUMMARY OF STRATEGY

Your “Spearhead” Argument:

The Government passed the Act in April claiming an “Emergency,” but didn’t check the math (Impact Assessment) until November. In the meantime, they awarded a £500m contract to themselves (June) and ignored environmental breaches that they fined private companies for.

Your First Move:

Issue the Module 2 FOI regarding the Late Impact Assessment and the Network Rail Contract Justification. This proves the “Procedural Impropriety” required for a Judicial Review.

Here are the super-reduced, legally targeted FOI letters drafted specifically for the Cocoo.uk case.

These are designed to extract only the missing evidentiary links identified in the filter process (e.g., proof of “double standards” or “procedural shortcuts”). They assume the recipient knows you are a legal research charity.

LETTER 1: THE “ZOMBIE REGULATOR” PROBE

Recipient: Environment Agency (National Customer Contact Centre)

Missing Info: Evidence that the State (British Steel) is being treated more leniently than private competitors (SBR Group) since the takeover.

Subject: FOI Request – Compliance Data for Permit EPR/LP3537VV (British Steel Scunthorpe)

Dear Information Rights Team,

I write on behalf of Cocoo.uk. We hold data regarding the prosecution of private operators in the Scunthorpe area (e.g., SBR Group, 2024). We require comparative data for the state-operated facility to assess consistency in regulatory enforcement.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004, please provide:

1. CCS Scores: The “Compliance Classification Scheme” (CCS) score recorded for every site inspection at British Steel Ltd (Scunthorpe) between 12 April 2025 and 17 December 2025.

2. Enforcement Actions: The total count of “Enforcement Notices” or “Regulation 36 Notices” issued to British Steel Ltd in the same period.

3. Breach Notifications: A list of all Schedule 5 Notifications (breach of permit limits) submitted by the operator to the EA since 12 April 2025.

Note: We are not requesting full inspection reports, only the summary scores and notification logs.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Solicitor, Cocoo.uk

LETTER 2: THE “PROCEDURAL FLAW” PROBE

Recipient: Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC)

Missing Info: The official “Red Rating” or “Not Fit for Purpose” opinion that confirms the illegality of the late Impact Assessment.

Subject: FOI Request – Scrutiny of “Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025” Impact Assessment

Dear RPC Secretariat,

We note from public records that the Impact Assessment (IA) for the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was submitted ex-post facto in November 2025, seven months after the Act passed.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide:

1. The Opinion Rating: The specific “Red / Amber / Green” rating assigned by the RPC to this late submission regarding its quality and the rationale for the delay.

2. Procedural Correspondence: The “Accounting Officer Minute” or formal letter from the RPC Chair to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) noting the breach of the “Better Regulation Framework” (i.e., failure to submit IA prior to legislation).

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Solicitor, Cocoo.uk

LETTER 3: THE “VIP LANE” / SUBSIDY PROBE

Recipient: Department for Transport (DfT) – Rail Procurement

Missing Info: The legal excuse used to hand British Steel a £500m contract without a tender in June (when the “emergency” was arguably over).

Subject: FOI Request – Direct Award Justification (British Steel / Network Rail Contract)

Dear FOI Team,

We refer to the £500m rail track supply contract awarded to British Steel Ltd in June 2025.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide:

1. Regulation 32 Report: The “Written Justification” or “Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) Referral” authorising the use of the negotiated procedure without prior publication (under PCR 2015 Reg 32 or equivalent PA 2023 provisions).

2. Conflict Management: The “Conflict of Interest Declaration” for the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) who approved this award, specifically regarding the dual role of the State as both purchaser (DfT) and vendor (British Steel Ltd).

Note: You may redact personal names, but we require the legal reasoning for the direct award.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Solicitor, Cocoo.uk

LETTER 4: THE “UNCLAIMED FUNDS” PROBE

Recipient: Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS)

Missing Info: The exact amount of money belonging to British Steel workers that the government is currently holding.

Subject: FOI Request – Unclaimed Redress (British Steel Pension Scheme)

Dear Disclosure Team,

We are investigating the “Enforcement Vacuum” regarding the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) redress programme.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide:

1. The “Pot” Total: The total monetary value (£) of unclaimed or undistributed compensation funds currently held by the FSCS (or returned to the Treasury) allocated for former BSPS members as of December 2025.

2. Dormant Funds: The number of eligible claimants who have failed to respond to redress offers.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Solicitor, Cocoo.uk

LETTER 5: THE “ASSET SEIZURE” PROBE (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY)

Recipient: Department for Business and Trade (DBT)

Missing Info: Proof that the State seized Jingye’s private data/IP without paying for it (a breach of Human Rights).

Subject: FOI Request – Valuation of “Intangible Assets” (British Steel Nationalisation)

Dear Information Rights Unit,

We are reviewing the asset transfer from Jingye Group to the state-owned British Steel Ltd on 12 April 2025.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide:

1. Valuation Instructions: The “Letter of Instruction” sent to PwC (or the appointed valuer) specifying whether “Intangible Assets” (Customer Lists, IP, proprietary data, and formulas) were to be valued at £0, or valued as commercial assets.

2. Data Transfer: A copy of the “Data Transfer Agreement” or “IP Licence” permitting the new state-owned entity to use the historical customer data and production IP of the former operator.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Solicitor, Cocoo.uk

NEXT STEP FOR YOU

Would you like me to prepare a “Schedule of Exemptions” for these requests? (i.e., a cheat sheet of the excuses they will use to say “No”—like Section 43 Commercial Interests—and the counter-arguments you must paste into your reply immediately).

==============================

====================

15DEC

Based on the content of the provided URLs, specifically the Grok Evidence II, Media Campaign, and Public Contract Application pages, here is the identification of DORCAPS (Decisions, Omissions, Regulations, Conducts, Actions, or Policies) related to the possible COAS (Causes of Action) in the Steel UK case.

CASE CONTEXT: The Steel Industry Special Measures Act 2025

The case centers on the UK Government’s intervention in the steel market through the Steel Industry Special Measures Act 2025 (passed April 12, 2025). This intervention involved taking control of British Steel’s Scunthorpe site from the Jingye Group, providing massive state subsidies, and awarding public contracts, leading to alleged market distortion, rights violations, and economic harm.

IDENTIFIED DORCAPS & RELATED COAS

1. DECISIONS

• Decision to Fast-Track Legislation: The government decided to pass the Steel Industry Special Measures Act 2025 using emergency powers, bypassing standard parliamentary scrutiny and consultation processes.

  • Related COAS: Judicial Review (Procedural Impropriety, Ultra Vires), Misfeasance in Public Office.

• Decision to Award £500m Rail Contract: The decision to award a five-year, £500 million contract to British Steel for rail tracks immediately after state takeover.

  • Related COAS: Competition Law (Abuse of Dominant Position), Illegal State Subsidy (Violation of WTO/ASCM rules), Judicial Review (Irrationality/Bias).

• Decision to Classify Steel as “National Security”: The decision to categorize steel production as a matter of national security to justify protectionist measures.

  • Related COAS: Competition Law, Breach of International Trade Agreements (GATT Article XXI violations).

2. OMISSIONS

• Failure to Compensate (Clause 7): The omission of a fair, transparent, or timely compensation mechanism for the Jingye Group following the de facto expropriation of the Scunthorpe assets.

  • Related COAS: Human Rights Act (ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 – Protection of Property), Breach of UK-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).

• Lack of Impact Assessments: Failure to conduct necessary economic impact assessments or consult with affected competitors (e.g., Tata Steel) and supply chain partners before passing the Act.

  • Related COAS: Judicial Review (Procedural Unfairness), Negligence.

• Omission of Sunset Clauses: The failure to include “sunset clauses” or cost controls in the subsidy package, creating an open-ended financial commitment.

  • Related COAS: Judicial Review (Irrationality), Illegal State Subsidy.

3. REGULATIONS

• The Steel Industry Special Measures Act 2025: The primary regulatory instrument itself, which authorized the intervention, subsidies, and seizure of control.

  • Related COAS: Judicial Review (Challenge to the validity of the Act itself), Constitutional Law (Breach of Separation of Powers).

• Import Safeguard Tightening: New regulations introduced in June 2025 to tighten steel import safeguards beyond Trade Remedies Authority recommendations.

  • Related COAS: WTO Dispute (Violation of Agreement on Safeguards).

4. CONDUCTS

• Police Action at Scunthorpe: The conduct of using police forces to enforce the state takeover of the British Steel site, leading to tensions with Jingye.

  • Related COAS: Tort (Trespass, Conversion), Human Rights Act (ECHR Article 8 – Right to Privacy/Home/Correspondence, A1P1).

• Market Distortion: The conduct of creating a “distorted market” where a state-backed entity (British Steel) can undercut private competitors due to unlimited funding.

  • Related COAS: Competition Act 1998 (Chapter II prohibition), Tort (Unlawful Interference with Economic Interests).

• Improper Lobbying/Influence: Alleged lack of transparency and potential “regulatory capture” or improper lobbying between government officials and specific industry stakeholders.

  • Related COAS: Misfeasance in Public Office.

5. ACTIONS

• Injection of £2.5 Billion Subsidy: The act of providing a £2.5 billion “support package” (plus £100m working capital) to British Steel.

  • Related COAS: Illegal State Subsidy (Subsidy Control Act 2022 violation), Competition Law.

• Issuance of Redundancy Notices: The action of issuing redundancy notices to 2,500 British Steel workers despite the “rescue” narrative.

  • Related COAS: Breach of Contract (Employment), Human Rights Act (Article 8).

6. POLICIES

• “Blank Cheque” Policy: The policy of providing unlimited financial backing to a specific national champion without conditionality.

  • Related COAS: Judicial Review (Wednesbury Unreasonableness).

• Protectionist Industrial Policy: The shift towards an aggressive industrial policy that favors domestic production through state aid while simultaneously penalizing imports.

  • Related COAS: International Trade Law Disputes.

SUMMARY OF CAUSES OF ACTION (COAS)

Based on the DORCAPS, the case consolidates these into major legal tracks:

1. Public Law / Judicial Review: Challenging the process and rationality of the Steel Act and subsequent decisions.

2. Competition & Subsidy Law: Challenging the market distortion caused by state aid and the abuse of dominance by the state-owned entity.

3. Private Law / Tort: Claims for damages regarding negligence, misfeasance, and economic harm to competitors and supply chains.

4. Human Rights & International Law: Claims regarding property rights (Jingye) and workers’ rights (British Steel employees).