GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL AGAINST FIRST GLASGOW (NO 1) LTD [2022] ScotCS CSOH_9 (27 January 2022)

GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL AGAINST FIRST GLASGOW (NO 1) LTD [2022] ScotCS CSOH_9 (27 January 2022)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a reference containing negligent misstatement was given by the defender. No clear or cogent evidence established the existence or content of the reference. Even if a reference was given, the defender did not owe a duty of care to the pursuer in the circumstances, and the losses claimed were too remote from any alleged negligence. The pursuer's claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSOH_9
Parties
Pursuer: Glasgow City Council; Defender: First Glasgow (No. 1) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Recovery of Settlement Sums / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care in Employment References, Best Evidence Rule, Remoteness of Damage, Causation
Tort Employment Law Evidence Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care in Employment References Best Evidence Rule Remoteness of Damage Causation

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glasgow City Council

Pursuer

First Glasgow (No. 1) Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Recovery of Settlement Sums / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the provider of an employment reference owe a duty of care to the recipient?
  2. 2 Was a reference given, and if so, what did it say?
  3. 3 Did the defender act negligently in providing the reference?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a reference containing negligent misstatement was given by the defender. No clear or cogent evidence established the existence or content of the reference. Even if a reference was given, the defender did not owe a duty of care to the pursuer in the circumstances, and the losses claimed were too remote from any alleged negligence. The pursuer's claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Pursuer's claim dismissed
  • No order for payment against defender