4U2 Ltd against Glasgow City Council (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCGLA 010 (14 February 2025)

4U2 Ltd against Glasgow City Council (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCGLA 010 (14 February 2025)

The court held that imposing a duty of care on a public authority to avoid economic loss when issuing reasons for an administrative decision would be a novel and non-incremental development of the law. There was insufficient proximity and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty, particularly where a remedy in judicial review exists. The pursuer's pleadings did not disclose a relevant case of breach or loss, as the communications did not amount to a refusal and there was no causal link to the alleged loss.

Citation
[2025] SCGLA 010
Parties
Pursuer: 4U2 Limited; Defender: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Cause (civil) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Judgment on Preliminary Plea
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Public Authority Liability, Judicial Review
Tort Administrative Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Economic Loss Public Authority Liability Judicial Review

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

4U2 Limited

Pursuer

Glasgow City Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Cause (civil) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Judgment on Preliminary Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a local authority owes a duty of care to avoid economic loss when issuing reasons for an administrative decision
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings disclose a relevant case of breach and loss for negligent misstatement

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that imposing a duty of care on a public authority to avoid economic loss when issuing reasons for an administrative decision would be a novel and non-incremental development of the law. There was insufficient proximity and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty, particularly where a remedy in judicial review exists. The pursuer's pleadings did not disclose a relevant case of breach or loss, as the communications did not amount to a refusal and there was no causal link to the alleged loss.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustains the third plea in law for the defender
  • Dismisses the action