International firm DWF has welcomed a judgment dismissing a data protection claim brought by clients in personal injury claims under investigation for dishonesty. 

Yesim Kul, Rohat Mahir and Mahmut Mahir claimed DWF Law LLP violated their rights as data subjects after the firm used their data, including health data, while acting for insurers in a county court claim. The three claimants were represented by London firm Ersan and Co Solicitors.

In the county court 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 insurers in which the claimants’ names appeared. An analysis collected evidence of ‘patterns’ in claims involving Ersan. DWF denied a breach of the UK GDPR.

In Yesim Kul & Ors v DWF Law LLP Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady said she was ‘satisfied’ DWF undertook the data processing ‘for a specified, explicit and legitimate purpose, carried out in performance of the defendant’s professional (and regulatory) obligations to its clients, for the public interest task of ensuring the proper administration of justice, and for the purpose of the legitimate interests of the defendant’s clients’.

She added that she did not consider the case one in which the claimants were ‘deceived or misled’.

Read more

If the claimants had looked at DWF’s website ‘they would have been advised of the potential use of their personal information in order to perform services for its clients, and that elements of that information might be disclosed to third parties’, the judgment said.

‘Even allowing that the claimants might reasonably not have taken that step, I am satisfied they would have been aware…that information disclosed in (proposed) litigation would be the subject of scrutiny and investigation by the lawyers acting for the insurer defendants, and would be utilised in open court proceedings.’

Dismissing the claim against DWF, the judge said no unfairness arose from the processing involved in the creation of Stevens’ witness statement ‘and its very limited disclosure by the defendant’ and the use of names was ‘necessary’ when the statement was disclosed to Ersan and the court.

Lorraine Carolan, global head of fraud at DWF, said: ‘The judgment reinforces the legality of DWF’s strategy, finding our actions in this matter to be for the purposes of the legitimate interests of our clients and both necessary and proportionate. This was an important case, for the 18 insurers who sit behind the claims giving rise to these proceedings, and for the industry more broadly. The judgment will support efforts to challenge claims which raise suspicions of exaggeration and fraud.

‘It is a clear win for insurers and their policyholders and should serve as a cautionary note to those contemplating bringing, or facilitating, such claims.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.