4U2 LTD against Glasgow City Council (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 13 (18 February 2026)

4U2 LTD against Glasgow City Council (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 13 (18 February 2026)

The appeal was refused because the email of 30 June 2020 did not constitute a refusal or a misrepresentation, but was a request for further information. No relevant case of negligent misrepresentation was pled, as there was no false statement or breach of duty. Even if a duty of care could arise, the necessary proximity and reliance were not established on the facts.

Citation
[2026] SACCIV 13
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: 4U2 Limited; Defender and Respondent: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Public Authority Liability, Grant Schemes
Tort Public Law Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Economic Loss Public Authority Liability Grant Schemes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

4U2 Limited

Pursuer and Appellant

Glasgow City Council

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a local authority owes a duty of care to avoid economic loss by negligent misrepresentation when communicating reasons for refusal of a grant application
  2. 2 Whether the council's email of 30 June 2020 constituted a misrepresentation or refusal of the application
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclosed a relevant case of negligent misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the email of 30 June 2020 did not constitute a refusal or a misrepresentation, but was a request for further information. No relevant case of negligent misrepresentation was pled, as there was no false statement or breach of duty. Even if a duty of care could arise, the necessary proximity and reliance were not established on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal refused and sheriff's interlocutors of 14 and 26 February 2025 adhered to
  • Appellant found liable to respondent in expenses of the appeal