header-logo header-logo

16 December 2010
Issue: 7446 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court rules on overpayments

Housing benefit & tax credits unaffected

The government cannot recover overpayments of social security benefits where the claimant is not at fault, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In the 12 months from March 2006, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) wrote to more than 65,000 claimants warning them they had been overpaid and could be sued for repayment.

The letters acknowledged the overpayments were entirely the fault of the government’s own administrative errors—and therefore not recoverable under statutory law, s 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992—but warned that court action would be taken under common law in the county court.

Delivering judgment in Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] UKSC 54, Lord Brown said it was “common ground” that overpayment resulting from misrepresentation or non-disclosure could be recovered under s 71.

The issue, he said, was whether s 71 provided an “exclusive code for recovery” or whether common law could be used to recover overpayment arising from “official error”.

Holding the former option, Lord Brown said: “It seems to me inconceivable that Parliament would have contemplated leaving the suggested common law restitutionary route to the recovery of overpayments available to the secretary of state to be pursued by way of ordinary court proceedings alongside the carefully prescribed scheme of recovery set out in the statute.

“Such an arrangement, moreover, would seem to me to create well-nigh insoluble problems. Could there, for example, be parallel recovery proceedings against the maker of the misrepresentation under section 71(3) and against the recipient of the benefit at common law in the courts?”

The ruling does not affect overpayments of housing benefit or tax credits.

 

Issue: 7446 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll