Appeal by Waheeda Akram against Assessor for Lothian Valuation Joint Board (Court of Session) [2026] CSIH 3 (14 January 2026)

Appeal by Waheeda Akram against Assessor for Lothian Valuation Joint Board (Court of Session) [2026] CSIH 3 (14 January 2026)

The court found that the Scottish Ministers did not owe Biffa a duty of care to volunteer information about the need for or status of an Internal Market Act exclusion. The letter of 17 May 2022 was a statement of policy commitment, not a guarantee of deliverability or legal compliance. There was no assumption of responsibility sufficient to create a special relationship. Biffa, as a sophisticated commercial entity, undertook known risks and had no reasonable basis to rely on the letter as a guarantee against all legal or regulatory impediments. The Ministers' omission to mention the IMA did not amount to negligent misrepresentation or breach of duty causing Biffa's losses.

Citation
[2026] CSIH 3
Parties
Pursuer: Biffa Waste Services Limited; Defenders: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (outer House, Court of Session) / Proof Before Answer on Duty of Care, Breach, and Causation (quantum Reserved)
Outcome
Action dismissed (no relevant duty of care or negligent misrepresentation established)
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Assumption of Responsibility, Duty of Care, Government Liability, Commercial Contracts, Deposit Return Scheme, Internal Market Act 2020
Contract Law Tort/delict Public Law Negligent Misrepresentation Assumption of Responsibility Duty of Care Government Liability Commercial Contracts +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biffa Waste Services Limited

Pursuer

The Scottish Ministers

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (outer House, Court of Session) / Proof Before Answer on Duty of Care, Breach, and Causation (quantum Reserved)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Scottish Ministers owe Biffa a duty of care in respect of representations made about the viability and deliverability of the deposit return scheme?
  2. 2 Was there a negligent misrepresentation by the Scottish Ministers in the letter of 17 May 2022?
  3. 3 Did the Scottish Ministers assume responsibility to Biffa for the scheme's viability?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Scottish Ministers did not owe Biffa a duty of care to volunteer information about the need for or status of an Internal Market Act exclusion. The letter of 17 May 2022 was a statement of policy commitment, not a guarantee of deliverability or legal compliance. There was no assumption of responsibility sufficient to create a special relationship. Biffa, as a sophisticated commercial entity, undertook known risks and had no reasonable basis to rely on the letter as a guarantee against all legal or regulatory impediments. The Ministers' omission to mention the IMA did not amount to negligent misrepresentation or breach of duty causing Biffa's losses.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed (no relevant duty of care or negligent misrepresentation established)

Orders

  • The pursuer's claim is dismissed.
  • Expenses awarded to the defenders.