Making a claim under HRA

[Spankymonkey]

I realise that you have 1 year to bring a claim under the Human Rights act but is it not possible to do it in such a way you get two bites of the same cherry?

For instance, you make a claim against the police for breach of PACE that does not necessarily give rise to a tort. So instead you decide to make a claim under the human rights act. Let me say article 8 for instance as there is almost no existing tort in respect of it. However, the wrong the police did was over a year ago, so you are effectively barred from bringing a claim under the HRA.

So you sue in county court. You lose.

Can you then use the decision of the county court to bring a new claim under the human rights act, effectively resetting the 1 year clock. Or must you appeal first all the way up to the supreme court first?

Sorry if I have not explained myself clearly here.

[atticus]

No. time runs from the date of the cause of action, i.e. the underlying matters that are said to amount to a breach of the HRA.

[Spankymonkey]

The reason I ask this is that there a lot of applications made to the ECHR when non-human rights claims fail in the local courts. One I read recently was about a claim at a tribunal that had been appealed all the way up to the supreme court. Surely that would have taken significantly longer than a year to do, notwithstanding the length of time the tribunal may have taken to make their decision after the initial cause of action occurred (dismissal for instance).

What I mean is, can you now use the supreme court judgement as a fresh cause of action in respect of underlying matters that are said to amount to a breach of the HRA?

[atticus]

No.

[Hairyloon]

What I mean is, can you now use the supreme court judgement as a fresh cause of action in respect of underlying matters that are said to amount to a breach of the HRA?

Not in respect of underlying matters, but there may possibly be a fresh claim under Article Six: a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

[atticus]

If grounds for making it exist, that would be a new complaint, and not a back door way of resurrecting the old one.

[Hairyloon]

If grounds for making it exist, that would be a new complaint, and not a back door way of resurrecting the old one.

That is what I meant by "not in respect of underlying matters".

[atticus]

That is not disputed

[Hairyloon]

That is not disputed

Nobody suggested it was. Do you feel the need to have the last word?

[dls]

No - that's me.

The time limits apply as to the commencement of the action. If an action is brought within the time limit than subsequent actions within that (but no other) action persist until final resolution. A supreme Court or ECHR hearing would only be derivative /continuative of the original action.