Introduction
This essay provides legal advice to Matthias, a resident of Merseyville facing financial hardship and dissatisfaction with government policies on the cost of living crisis. Matthias applied for financial assistance from the City Hardship Fund, established under the City Hardship Fund Act 2025, but his application was rejected by an independent advisor on grounds relating to his involvement in disruptive protests. He now seeks to challenge this decision through judicial review and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. This essay will address three key areas: the constitutional purposes of judicial review and the HRA 1998 in UK administrative law, the procedural steps for initiating challenges under both mechanisms, and the relevant grounds for review, including potential HRA arguments. By applying the law to Matthias’s circumstances, the essay aims to offer clear and practical guidance for pursuing his case, while demonstrating a sound understanding of public law principles and their application.
Constitutional Purpose of Judicial Review and the Human Rights Act 1998
Judicial review is a fundamental mechanism in UK administrative law, designed to ensure that public authorities act within their legal powers and comply with principles of fairness and reasonableness. Its constitutional purpose is to uphold the rule of law by providing a check on the exercise of public power, ensuring accountability and protecting individuals from unlawful or arbitrary decisions (Wade and Forsyth, 2014). Through judicial review, courts assess the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of decisions made by public bodies, such as Merseyville City Council or their delegated advisors. For Matthias, this means that judicial review offers a pathway to challenge the lawfulness of the decision to reject his application for financial assistance.
The Human Rights Act 1998, on the other hand, incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, obliging public authorities to act compatibly with Convention rights. Its constitutional purpose is to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms, allowing individuals to seek redress in domestic courts for violations without needing to approach the European Court of Human Rights (Hoffman and Rowe, 2009). Under Section 6 of the HRA, public authorities, including local councils, must not act in a way that infringes on rights such as the right to a fair hearing (Article 6) or freedom of assembly (Article 11). For Matthias, the HRA is relevant as it may provide a basis to argue that the rejection of his application unfairly penalises his protest activities, potentially breaching his rights under the ECHR.
Procedures for Judicial Review and Human Rights Act Challenges
To initiate a judicial review challenge, Matthias must follow a well-defined procedure under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 54. First, he must file a claim form with the Administrative Court within three months of the decision he wishes to challenge—here, the rejection letter dated October 2025. This time limit is strict, and delay could bar his claim unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated (Craig, 2016). Before filing, Matthias is encouraged to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review, which involves sending a letter to Merseyville City Council outlining his grievance and seeking resolution without litigation. If unsuccessful, he must then seek permission from the court to proceed with judicial review, demonstrating that he has an arguable case and standing as an affected party. If permission is granted, a full hearing will assess the merits of his challenge.
For a claim under the HRA 1998, Matthias can bring an action against Merseyville City Council as a public authority under Section 7 of the Act. He must initiate proceedings in an appropriate court, typically the High Court, within one year of the alleged violation, though this may be extended if deemed equitable (Hoffman and Rowe, 2009). As with judicial review, a pre-action step of engaging with the council is advisable to resolve the matter without court intervention. Importantly, HRA claims can often be combined with judicial review proceedings, allowing Matthias to argue human rights breaches alongside grounds like illegality or irrationality. Legal aid may be available for both processes, given his financial vulnerability, though eligibility criteria apply.
Grounds for Judicial Review and Arguments under the Human Rights Act 1998
Matthias can pursue several grounds for judicial review to challenge the rejection of his Hardship Fund application. The first ground is illegality, as the City Hardship Fund Act 2025 explicitly states under Section 2 that decisions must be made by a Panel of five elected members. By delegating this responsibility to an independent advisor, Merseyville City Council appears to have acted ultra vires, exceeding its statutory powers (Wade and Forsyth, 2014). This procedural error undermines the legality of the decision-making process, and Matthias can argue that the rejection is void as a result.
A second ground is procedural unfairness. The independent advisor, who had a prior altercation with Matthias over a council tax dispute, may have been biased or prejudiced in making the decision. The principle of natural justice requires decision-makers to be impartial, and any perception of bias could render the decision unfair (Craig, 2016). Matthias can contend that he was denied a fair hearing due to the advisor’s personal history with him, further strengthened by the lack of opportunity to present his case to an unbiased Panel as mandated by the Act.
Thirdly, Matthias can argue irrationality under the Wednesbury principle, which states that a decision must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, 1948). The advisor’s reasoning—that funding Matthias would “not be in the best interests of the residents of Merseyville” due to his protest activities—may be deemed disproportionate or irrelevant to the purpose of the Hardship Fund as outlined in Section 1 of the Act, which is to assist those most in need. Given Matthias’s evident financial vulnerability, rejecting his application on these grounds could be seen as irrational.
Under the HRA 1998, Matthias can argue that the rejection infringes on his rights under Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). By citing his participation in protests as a reason for refusal, the decision effectively penalises him for exercising a protected right, which may constitute an unlawful interference unless justified as necessary and proportionate under Article 11(2) (Hoffman and Rowe, 2009). Additionally, he might invoke Article 6 (right to a fair trial) to challenge the lack of an impartial decision-maker, aligning with the procedural unfairness ground in judicial review. However, the strength of this argument depends on whether the Hardship Fund application process qualifies as a determination of his civil rights, which is context-dependent and may require further legal clarification.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Matthias has viable avenues to challenge Merseyville City Council’s rejection of his Hardship Fund application through judicial review and the HRA 1998. Judicial review serves to ensure public authorities act lawfully and fairly, while the HRA protects fundamental rights, both providing constitutional safeguards against arbitrary decisions. Procedurally, Matthias must act promptly to file for judicial review within the three-month limit and consider combining HRA claims within the same action. On grounds for review, he can pursue illegality due to improper delegation, procedural unfairness due to potential bias, and irrationality regarding the reasoning for rejection. Under the HRA, arguments concerning Articles 11 and potentially 6 offer additional support, particularly regarding his protest activities. While success is not guaranteed, these grounds provide a robust basis for challenge, and Matthias should seek legal representation to navigate the complexities of these mechanisms effectively. This case illustrates the importance of accountability in public decision-making and the role of legal remedies in protecting vulnerable individuals like Matthias from unjust outcomes.
References
- Craig, P. (2016) Administrative Law. 8th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
- Hoffman, D. and Rowe, J. (2009) Human Rights in the UK: An Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998. 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.
- Wade, H.W.R. and Forsyth, C.F. (2014) Administrative Law. 11th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
