KB 2023 004108 - [2025] EWHC 1824 (KB)

The claimants were involved in road traffic accidents; C2 and C3 in an accident on 2 October 2016, C1 in an accident on 19 January 2019. Ersan and Co Solicitors (“Ersan”) were instructed to act for each of the claimants.

C2 was age 10 at the time of the accident; as a minor, in all court proceedings in which he was involved, C2 acted through C3, his father and litigation friend, until he turned 18, on 5 May 2024. A claim notification form in respect of C2 was received by the defendant, acting for the relevant insurer, relating to C2s’s potential claim relating to the 2016 accident. This made apparent that a medical report had been obtained from a Dr Shaikh and a psychiatric report from a Dr Yahli. After pre-action correspondence, on 22 January 2019, C2’s personal injury claim was settled.

C3 also pursued a claim in his own right relating to the same accident. He issued proceedings on 7 July 2017, naming the other driver and their insurer as defendants and claiming damages for physical and psychological injuries, with reliance being placed upon a report from Dr Shaikh, which provided personal information regarding C3 and details of his alleged injuries. Ultimately C3’s claim was settled on 5 October 2017.

On 22 February 2022, C1 issued proceedings in relation to the accident in which she was involved. The pleaded case against the other driver and their insurance company initially included a claim for damages for physical and psychological injuries, in support of which two medical reports were served, one from a Dr Bansal of 3 March 2019, which provided personal information relating to C1 and a summary of her claimed physical and psychological injuries, the second, from Dr Yahli dated 15 October 2019, which provided further personal information regarding C1 and further detail relating to her claimed psychological injuries. At a later stage, C1 abandoned her claim of psychological injury, no longer relying on the report from Dr Yahli. In the defence, reliance was placed on the earlier claim of psychological injury and its abandonment, the defendants inviting the court to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty under section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. C1’s claim remains on-going and there has yet been no determination of the question of fundamental dishonesty.

The defendant is a law firm that acts for some 18 insurers who are substantive defendants to a large number of road traffic accident claims brought by individuals represented by Ersan; those insurers include defendants (or, in C2’s case, a potential defendant) to the claims advanced by the claimants.