Seal v United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Dec 2010

The court considered a procedural filter which prevented the bringing of a claim relating to the exercise of powers under the 1983 Act without the leave of the court.
Held: ‘The Court notes at the outset that the Applicant pursued his complaints under Article 6 (1) of the Convention through four tiers of the domestic courts, which gave considered and detailed judgments. In contrast, the issues arising under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 (1) have never been raised before the domestic courts. The applicant has failed to explain in any detail why he considered that domestic proceedings were effective in respect of his Article 6 (1) complaint but would be ineffective in respect of his Article 14 complaint.’
The Court noted that: ‘that the restriction in section 139(2) of the 1983 Act was in the form of an additional procedural requirement before the commencement of a civil claim, and did not grant any immunity from civil proceedings. Further, any request for leave was considered by an independent High Court Judge, and would be granted in the case of a well-founded claim.’
Lech Garlicki, P
[2010] ECHR 1976, 50330/07, [2011] MHLR 1, (2012) 54 EHRR 6
European Convention on Human Rights, Mental Health Act 1983 139(2)
See AlsoSeal v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2009
The applicant complained that, as a mental patient, he was bound to obtain permision before beginning legal proceedings. . .

Cited by:
CitedWalsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
CitedTW v London Borough of Enfield and Another QBD 8-May-2013
The claimant sought damages after being detained under the 1983 Act, and a declaration that the section used was incompatible with her human rights.
Held: The test for allowing proceedings was set at a low level, and even if section 139 does . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.509111