Property Disputes analysis: The claimant alleged negligence and nuisance by the adjoining homeowner, claiming that the defendant’s negligence and nuisance caused both physical damage and interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the claimant’s property. The High Court examined when a cause of action is complete for both torts, and found that where they had been interwoven it was not possible to give judgment without a full trial. Written by William Hanbury, barrister with the assistance of Jack Scott, pupil barrister, both at Exchange Chambers.

This Practice Note is about: • a taxpayer’s right to receive interest on repayments of overpaid tax, whether under a statutory regime, the common law (and specifically the law of restitution), or EU law, retained EU law or assimilated law • the corporation tax charge on restitution interest, and • for tax that was overpaid before 31 December 2020, EU law on whether overpaid tax may give rise to a right to damages This Practice Note includes references to EU-derived law and case law. The UK ceased to be an EU Member State on 31 January 2020. On this date the UK entered an implementation period (IP), during which it continued to be treated as a Member State for many purposes and remained bound by EU law. The IP ended at 11 pm on 31 December 2020. On that date, a body of EU-derived rights and legislation, known as retained EU law (REUL), was converted into domestic UK law. On 1 January 2024, REUL that remained in force after the

This Practice Note looks at the position where a person has overpaid tax (ie paid an amount by way of tax where tax was not due) and their rights to recover that amount under the common law of restitution. It covers direct taxes and VAT. Tax may be overpaid for a number of reasons, although many of the cases that have come before the courts have concerned tax that is overpaid because it was imposed in breach of EU law. A taxpayer should first consider whether they have, or had, a statutory right to recover overpaid tax, see Practice Note: Overpaid tax—the statutory regimes. If there is a statutory right of recovery, the taxpayer may (depending on the terms of the statute) be precluded from bringing a claim under the common law of restitution, even if the statutory claim is now time-barred. This Practice Note includes references to EU-derived law and case law. The UK ceased to be an EU Member State on 31 January 2020. On this date the UK entered an implementation

This Practice Note outlines the statutory provisions regulating the recovery of: • overpaid direct tax, for instance if a person has paid an amount by way of income tax where income tax was not due, and • VAT paid by a taxable person to HMRC in excess of the amount they were liable to pay, either as a result of paying too much output tax or recovering too little input tax Where these statutory regimes do not apply, it is possible that there may be a claim under the law of restitution. For information on how the law of restitution applies in the context of overpaid tax, see Practice Note: Overpaid tax—restitution. This Practice Note includes references to EU-derived law and case law. The UK ceased to be an EU Member State on 31 January 2020. On this date the UK entered an implementation period (IP), during which it continued to be treated as a Member State for many purposes and remained bound by EU law. The IP ended at 11

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO TRUST-BASED OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES This Practice Note focuses on overpayments of benefits to scheme members. For information specific to overpayments of contributions by members and employers into the scheme, see Q&A: When can overpaid pension contributions be recovered from a pension scheme? The overpayment of benefits from occupational pension schemes generally arises either as a result of: • an incorrect calculation of benefits due, or • incorrect information being provided to the pension scheme which is then used to form the factual basis upon which the benefit calculations are subsequently carried out Less frequently, the trustees and administrators may be mistaken about the benefits which the scheme provides, for example where it is mistakenly believed that a benefit improvement has been granted. In such a case, a large number of scheme members may be affected. Regardless of the cause of the error, the overpayment of benefits can cause considerable difficulties and distress for the trustees of the relevant pension scheme, its sponsoring employer and, naturally, the members

The transfer of beneficial interests from land to the proceeds of sale.

Overreaching is a statutory mechanism available to a mortgagee (among others) to confer title on the buyer free from charges and encumbrances ranking subsequent to the mortgagee’s security. Overreaching is also available in receivership sales, by ensuring that the mortgagee, rather than the receiver executes the transfer of the property to the buyer. Overreaching can also occur in the context of a mortgagee taking security for repayment of a loan from the trustees of a trust. The mortgagee will be concerned that the security document granted to it by the trustee will overreach the beneficial interest of the beneficiaries of the trust. For more information, see Practice Notes: Enforcement issues for trust property and Overreaching—sales by trustees of land. Buyer’s requirements When taking an appointment, a receiver should consider the requirements of a potential buyer. Usually, a buyer will want to acquire a property free from any charges, including the charge in favour of the selling mortgagee and any other charges registered on the title. The problem is how to satisfy a buyer where

Property analysis: Was a transfer effected by means of a legal transfer from the debtor and his wife jointly into her sole name a sale of the legal interest or just the debtor’s beneficial share of the property? Tim Calland, barrister at Maitland Chambers, considers the decision in Banwaitt v Dewji and another, in which he acted for the successful claimant.

Broadly, the doctrine of overreaching enables purchasers (which includes tenants and mortgagees) in good faith for money or money’s worth to rely solely on the legal title. In the case of registered land, this means the entries entered on the register of title, as it records ownership of the legal estate and is not concerned with equitable interests. A buyer of a legal estate in land from trustees will not be affected by any of the trusts on which the land is held if the purchase price is paid to all the trustees (of whom there must be at least two) or to a trust corporation. Payment of the price in this manner means that the interests of the beneficiaries are said to be ‘overreached’. This is commonly known as the 'two trustee' rule. Overreaching also occurs in sales: • under the powers of the Settled Land Act 1925 • by a mortgagee (see Overreaching by a mortgagee) or personal representative • under a court order This Practice Note deals only with sales by

An interest in land that continues to have effect despite the registration of a disposition.

Property analysis: An overriding interest does not defeat overreaching. The High Court decided that land was subject to a right of way granted over it after the transfer, where there had been delay in registration of the transfer and the right of way was registered first. It also confirmed that a contract which has merged on completion is not an ‘estate contract’ so as to be an exception to the statutory overreaching provisions.

EU Law analysis: On 5 March 2024, the Court of Justice held in Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission that there is an overriding public interest in the publication of harmonized standards. The Court of Justice reached this conclusion by stressing that there is an overriding public interest in making such harmonized standards freely available given their importance to allow companies to conform to the European product safety legislation. Although this decision related to four harmonised standards concerning the product safety of toys, the impact of this decision will apply to all existing and future harmonised standards. Written by Peter Van Dyck, partner at A&O Shearman and Marie Barani, Know-how lawyer at A&O Shearman.