View source for Seal v UK 50330/07 (2010) ECHR 1976

''The claimant issued his claim on the eve of the limitation period without seeking leave under [[s139]]; the House of Lords had found that his claim was therefore a nullity. (1) No breach of [[Article 6]] was found because (a) the six-year limitation period pursued a legitimate aim, (b) s139 was to restrict access to the court only where the claim was manifestly unmeritorious, and its general aim of protecting those who exercise powers under that Act, including the police, pursued a legitimate aim, (c) the decision to strike out did not impair the very essence of the applicant's right of access to court and was not disproportionate: he had not explained his delay or failure to seek leave, and should bear the consequences of his own decisions, and in any event could continue his non-MHA claims (2) No breach of Article 6 taken with [[Article 14]] was found because he did not argue it in any substance and, by not having argued it previously, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.''

==Related judgments==
[[Seal v UK 50330/07 (2010) ECHR 1976]]
*[[Seal v UK 50330/07 (2009) ECHR 806]] - statement of facts and question to the parties
:*[[Seal v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2007) UKHL 31]]
::*[[Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2005) EWCA Civ 586]]

==Citations==
[2010] All ER (D) 81 (Dec), (2012) 54 EHRR 6, [2011] MHLR 1

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2010] ECHR 1976}}

[[Category:Miscellaneous cases]]
[[Category:ECHR]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]