KB 2023 004108 - [2025] EWHC 1824 (KB)
Fecha: 22-Jul-2025
Ersan road traffic accident personal injury claims before the County Court
Ersan road traffic accident personal injury claims before the County Court
In the course of 2021, various applications were considered by the Mayor’s and City of London County Court relating to some 43 separate claims for personal injury and other losses arising from road traffic accidents, in which the claimants were all represented by Ersan (“Ersan claims”). Each claimant initially relied on a psychiatric report from Dr Yahli but had subsequently made clear they no longer wished to do so, applying for leave to obtain alternative psychiatric evidence. For the defendants, applications were made to have all 43 claims case managed and determined by the same judge, it being argued that the Ersan claims were unusual, given the high proportion of claims for damages for psychological injury with (as opined by Dr Yahli) a prognosis of significant duration. The defendant’s application was refused by Her Honour Judge Backhouse, who also refused all but one application to obtain fresh psychiatric evidence (observing there was little or no evidence of psychiatric injury). The Ersan claims were listed for trial, with the first trials due to commence during the latter part of 2021.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Ersan road traffic accident personal injury claims before the County Court
- JS1 and the initial data protection objections
- The debarring application and appeal
- Complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office
- Resumption of the county court proceedings and the Ersan undertaking
- The current proceedings
- The evidence
- The claims before me and the parties’ submissions
- The defence
- The legal framework
- Lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner
- Purpose limitation
- Data minimisation, storage limitation, integrity and confidentiality
- What is “necessary” and the proportionality assessment
- Pleadings
- Analysis and conclusions
- The factual basis for the claims: my findings
- Whether the processing was lawful - purpose
- Necessity and proportionality
- Fairness and transparency
- Purpose limitation
- Data minimisation, storage limitation, integrity and confidentiality
- Abuse of process
- Conclusions