A claimant firm subject to a defendant’s dossiers about its conduct has been denied access to legal discussions about how the files were put together.
Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE, ruling in Kul & Ors v DWF Law, said the application for details of discussions between DWF and its insurer clients was a in part a ‘fishing expedition’ with no basis.
London firm Ersan & Co Solicitors is bringing a data protection claim on behalf of three former clients in personal injury cases dating from at least six years ago.
In county court proceedings in 2021, it emerged that DWF had analysed claims data provided by 18 insurer clients on 372 matters where Ersan & Co was instructed, as part of fundamental dishonesty pleadings. The data contained personal details of the three individuals who are now bringing claims under the UK GDPR (the case had initially involved 137 claimants, but the rest have been discontinued).
Ersan submits that DWF processed more personal data than was necessary, and that this was excessive and unlawful. DWF denies liability in all respects and accuses the claimant firm of seeking to relitigate issues.
The matter has been listed for a two-day trial later this year, but Ersan applied in advance for specific disclosure of communications – including meeting notes, correspondence and attendance notes – between DWF and its insurer clients regarding the sharing of the claimants’ personal data. Ersan argued this disclosure was clearly relevant as the central issue in the case will be whether DWF can establish a lawful jurisdiction for the processing of claimants’ data.
DWF said the communications are privileged, being both confidential and for the dominant purpose of litigation. This pleading extended to DWF Forensics Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of DWF.
DWF said a further request for similar attempts to process data involving other than Ersan was wholly flawed and ‘so poorly defined as to be scarcely intelligible’. The defendant firm told the court this amounted to an ‘ill-defined fishing expedition’.
The judge said communications between DWF and insurers would inevitably be covered by legal privilege, adding that the fact that these communications were for the dominant purpose of litigation was inherent in the claimants’ complaints.
3 Readers' comments