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

At the trial of the claims, I was presented with documentary evidence in an agreed bundle of some 2,310 pages, together with two supplemental bundles (one from the claimants of 96 pages; one from the defendant of 67 pages). I was also provided with an agreed authorities bundle, which comprised two lever arch files. In support of the claims, each of the claimants gave evidence, as did Mr Christopher Gadd, a consultant solicitor. For its part, the defendant called Mr Michael Henman, a solicitor and a partner at the defendant firm.

Each of the claimants testified that, when the data set attached to JS1 had been drawn to their attention (I understand that this would have been by Ersan), they had been very concerned about what they saw as a serious data breach, which they did not see as mitigated by the fact that they were each just one of some 372 named individuals on the spreadsheet. Acknowledging that they had themselves brought (or threatened) personal injury claims (albeit C2 was a child and so acted through his father, C3), and had chosen to pursue the current proceedings, the claimants considered their personal data should only have been used for the purpose of their own claim/s (or, in C2’s case, potential claim); if they had known that the insurers would seek to rely on JS1, they would have tried to stop that. Each claimant was asked whether Ersan was supporting these claims financially; none admitted this was the case, but equally none was prepared to explain how the case was being funded or who had paid the earlier costs orders, with reference being made only to there being “an arrangement” with Ersan, which none of the claimants was willing to detail.

C1 and C3 gave evidence through a Turkish interpreter. It was put to C1 that, in thus using an interpreter (and otherwise speaking in Turkish), she was giving an inaccurate impression to the court as her LinkedIn profile showed that she was a certified translator and qualified teacher in English as a second language (“ESL”), with a BA(Hons) degree from Anglia Ruskin University. C1 disputed that she was seeking to mislead the court, explaining that she did some voluntary ESL work at a basic level for refugees, and she had not wanted to be misunderstood in court. C1 accepted that she had an on-going personal injury case in which the defendant had alleged fundamental dishonesty; she did not feel, however, that this justified the use of her data in other cases. C1 explained that Ersan had told her that her data had been used but that she had herself determined to pursue this litigation. As for C3, he could not recall whether he had seen the spreadsheet in Turkish but said it had been read to him in Turkish, although he could not remember when that was; in any event, he said he was particularly distressed because his son’s (C2’s) data was included. C2 gave evidence in English, explaining he had been acting in his own name (making his own decisions in the litigation) since he turned 18, in May 2024.

In his statement, Mr Gadd was described as a consultant solicitor at Ersan; asked (by Mr Hopkins) why this was not recorded by the Law Society, Mr Gadd said he had consultancies at a number of firms and may have failed to keep the Law Society record up to date. He further explained that his consultancy at Ersan had started in November/December 2024, and was for a discrete purpose, namely to provide a witness statement in these proceedings. As he had no prior involvement in the matters to which these claims related, Mr Gadd acknowledged that he was giving evidence about something of which he had no knowledge other than that he had been told or shown by others. Asked why he was giving evidence at all, Mr Gadd responded: “I don’t know, I was asked to do so; I was paid to do so”.

For the defendant, Mr Henman had provided a statement to address a small number of discrete points: (1) his check of the defendant’s records had shown that insurer consent had been obtained for the processing of data for the purposes of JS1; (2) the personal data contained within JS1 had only been disclosed by the defendant to Ersan and to the courts dealing with the relevant claims; (3) in February 2022, the General Medical Council (“GMC”) had initially made a request to the defendant for certain data relating to JS1 but this was not pursued and the defendant did not disclose the data in question; (4) in April 2021, the defendant had provided certain data relating to the Ersan claimants to the Insurance Fraud Bureau (“IFB”), at the IFB’s request, but that had not included the personal data of C1, C2 or C3. The defendant also adduced in evidence a print-out of the privacy notice that was on its website at the time JS1 was composed. This provides detailed information as to the personal data collected and received by the defendant, and how that is obtained, stored and used. For those who are “an opposing party”, it is explained that the defendant may “use your personal information in order to perform services for our clients” and that elements of that information “may be shared with or disclosed to third parties as part of our work in relation to that matter”.