Who may bring a Human Rights Act claim, and when (HRA 1998 s.7)
In August 2025 officers of a local council in England entered and searched the home of Tomasz Nowak without lawful authority, which he says breached his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. In October 2026, 14 months later, Tomasz wants to bring proceedings against the council under s.7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. A national privacy charity, which was not itself affected by the search, also wants to bring its own claim against the council about the same search. No stricter time limit applies to the procedure to be used.
Which of the following best describes the position?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: Only Tomasz, as a victim, may bring proceedings; his claim is outside the one-year period, but the court may allow a longer period it considers equitable in all the circumstances.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Only a victim may bring proceedings under HRA s.7(1)(a), within one year of the act or such longer period as the court considers equitable.
Who may bring a Human Rights Act claim, and when (HRA 1998 s.7)
Section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a person who claims that a public authority has acted unlawfully under s.6(1) to bring proceedings against it, or rely on the Convention right in any legal proceedings, but only if he is, or would be, a victim of the unlawful act. Under s.7(7), a person is a victim only if he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention in Strasbourg. Tomasz, whose home was searched, is a victim; the charity, which was not itself affected, is not. Even on judicial review, s.7(3) treats an applicant as having sufficient interest only if he is a victim. Under s.7(5), proceedings under s.7(1)(a) must be brought within one year beginning with the date of the act complained of, or such longer period as the court considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances. Tomasz is outside one year, but the court may extend time.
Why A is wrong: Section 7(1) and (3) require the claimant to be a victim; a general 'sufficient interest' is not enough for a s.7 claim.
Why C is wrong: The one-year limit is not absolute: s.7(5)(b) allows such longer period as the court considers equitable.
Why D is wrong: Section 7(5) sets a one-year primary limit for s.7(1)(a) proceedings, not the six-year tort limitation period.
Why E is wrong: The charity is not a victim and cannot sue under s.7; Tomasz may still seek an equitable extension.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Hybrid public authorities and private acts under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b) and (5)
Which of the following best describes the application of s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the company?
Effect of a declaration of incompatibility (HRA 1998 ss.3-4)
Which of the following best describes the effect of the declaration?
Judicial review time limits: promptly and within three months
Which of the following best describes the time limit for Bilal's claim for judicial review?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.