A law firm has been accused of using its clients’ ‘hopeless’ GDPR claim to pursue its own interests in a separate claim, the High Court was told yesterday. The ‘direct attack’ was ‘not relevant to these claims’ Richard Hanstock, for the claimants, argued during the day and a half trial before Mrs Justice Eady.
Yesim Kul, Rohat Mahir, and Mahmut Mahir claim that international firm DWF Law LLP violated their rights as data subjects after the firm used their data, including health data, in a separate county court claim.
The three claimants brought separate personal injury claims following road traffic collisions. They were represented by London-based firm Ersan and Co Solicitors; DWF acted for the insurer defendants. Ersan had been investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the file had been closed by the regulator, the court heard.
In separate proceedings, DWF's then head of organised fraud James Stevens, made a witness statement which contained an analysis of claims data provided to DWF by its insurer clients in which the claimants' names appeared. An analysis collected evidence of ‘patterns’ in claims involving Ersan. DWF denies a breach of the UK GDPR.
Read more
Hanstock told the court: ‘The [data collection] procedure was unfair, it lacked transparency and it went further than reasonably necessary for this purpose. The data was concerning health. It is common ground that clearly the data with which this case is concerned is special category data.’
Pseudonymisation of the data would have been a measure to protect the claimant’s data, he told the court. ‘This is a textbook case where that would have been appropriate.'
Robin Hopkins, for DWF, said Ersan is 'in the driving seat' of the data protection claim. 'The sole or main purpose of these data protection claims being pursued by three individuals is to secure an advantage for Ersan and her clients in ongoing claim against insurers, DWF’s clients.’ He told the court the claim was ‘an abuse of this courts process’ adding: ‘It is an attempt to relitigate UK GDPR issues'.
‘[The claimants are] seeking to use these data protection claims to stay the RTA claims and then deploy what they hope is a favourable judgment from this court to show [James Stevens first witness statement] was produced unlawfully. To suggest securing redactions or pseudonymisation for these three claimants just does not fit. It is incoherent to suggest that is what this claim is really about.’
All three claimants gave evidence. All said they had been ‘upset’ when they became aware their data had been used in a case unrelated to their own.
Mahit, speaking through an interpreter, said in evidence: ‘My name has already been disclosed without my permission. It has already been used. I am just here to ask the judge to rectify this mistake.’
When asked how they would pay costs if they lost their claim, one witness said he refused to answer. Another, when asked if she was bringing the claim to help Ersan said: ‘Absolutely not.’
Judgment was reserved.
