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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll