KB 2023 004108 - [2025] EWHC 1824 (KB)
Fecha: 22-Jul-2025
Introduction
This case raises issues relating to the processing of data disclosed in personal injury litigation. When an analysis of data across County Court proceedings has given rise to concerns as to the veracity of the claims, what, if any, should be the limitations on the processing of that data when considering applying for the dismissal of particular claims for fundamental dishonesty? In the current proceedings, the claimants complain of the actions of the defendant in proceedings to which the claimants themselves were not parties, which they say violated their rights as data subjects.
The claims before me are brought under the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR”); 137 claimants were initially involved but all save the current three claimants (originally the first, thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh claimants) subsequently discontinued their claims. For convenience, when necessary to distinguish between them, I refer to the current claimants as C1, C2 and C3.
- 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