A legal appeal has been served challenging Fife Council’s decision to grant Uber a booking office licence after hundreds of objections were rejected without being heard.

The writ, served on 20 October, asks Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court to quash the decision and return the application to Fife Council for reconsideration, with the appellants’ objections taken into account.

The appeal is brought by James Glen, Tahir Ali and Tariq Ali. It argues that the council made errors of law, relied on incorrect material facts, exercised its discretion unreasonably and acted contrary to natural justice.

Uber Scot Limited applied on 23 January 2026 for a booking office licence at Rosyth Business Centre. When the application came before the council’s Regulation and Licensing Committee on 22 September, 25 objectors had been invited to address members.

At the outset, Uber’s solicitor challenged the validity of the objections. Following legal advice and a lengthy recess, the committee rejected them. The licence was subsequently granted under delegated powers without the objectors presenting their case. The decision and subsequent council apology attracted coverage from STV News, The Courier and other outlets.

The writ advances three central arguments:

 • Signed postal objections were submitted. Two appellants say they posted signed letters, challenging the factual basis for treating all objections as unsigned.

• Objectors were denied a fair opportunity to respond. The appellants argue that those present should have been allowed to answer Uber’s challenge, and that the committee should have considered allowing any signature defect to be corrected through its powers to accept late objections.

• Typed names could satisfy the signature requirement. The writ argues that the emailed objections were electronically signed and should have been accepted, citing electronic communications legislation and case law.

It also refers to correspondence in which a council licensing officer expressly accepted an objector’s digital signature before the hearing.

These are the appellants’ arguments and have yet to be determined by the court.

James Glen, one of the appellants, said: “Fife Council strung objectors along for eight months, accepted their objections as valid and invited them to speak. Then, faced with Uber’s lawyer, it capitulated and shut them out.

“It then granted the licence without further ado, ignoring the stringent conditions set by other authorities on Uber licences.

“Officers and councillors, under Cllr Tom Adams’s stewardship, failed both the taxi trade and the wider Fife public. This was an abuse of the democratic process.

“The Council has apologised, but an apology is nowhere near enough. Individual Fifers should not have to find thousands of pounds to put right the council’s failure to give them a fair hearing.”

Uber Fife’s campaign is focused on accountability and a fair hearing. It expects Uber ultimately to hold a permanent licence in Fife, but maintains that the eventual outcome cannot excuse an unfair or unlawful process.

The campaign has launched a CrowdJustice appeal with an initial £5,000 target to support the challenge through Nisbets Solicitors & Solicitor Advocates. Potential costs are estimated at up to £20,000.

Anyone who believes residents and businesses deserve fair treatment in council decisions is invited to contribute. You do not have to be a taxi driver or oppose Uber. A contribution of £10, or whatever people can afford, will help fund the challenge.

• Fundraiser: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber-fife/

• Campaign: https://www.uberfife.com/

• Share on Facebook
• Share to X