DWF, a national law firm, is facing accusations of data protection breaches concerning evidence collected in a legal dispute involving a North London-based firm, Ersan & Co., which represents claimants in personal injury cases.
The allegations emerged following a ruling by Mrs. Justice Eady on April 1, 2025, in which the claimants contended that DWF had violated data protection laws in its handling of personal data related to a series of road traffic claims. Specifically, the data included health-related information, which, according to the claimants, constitutes a special category of personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In 2021, James Stevens, DWF’s former head of organised fraud, prepared a witness statement (referred to as ‘JS1’) to support claims of fundamental dishonesty in five low-value road traffic cases in which Ersan & Co. represented the claimants. The statement analyzed 372 claims submitted by Ersan & Co., noting trends such as the high prevalence of psychological injury claims and recommendations for further psychological evaluations.
The claimants in the case argued that the data used by DWF was excessive and unnecessary for its original purpose, and that their consent had not been obtained before the personal data was processed. DWF, however, maintains that the claims are an attempt by Ersan & Co. to challenge earlier legal decisions and prevent the firm from relying on the witness statement.
In a ruling by Her Honour Judge Backhouse, the claimants’ application to exclude JS1 from the case was rejected, with the judge not concluding that the evidence proved dishonesty on the part of Ersan & Co. A subsequent appeal by DWF’s legal team was upheld by Mr. Justice Freedman in 2022, although the judge emphasized that it did not establish dishonesty.
The current proceedings, which were initiated in October 2023 with 137 claimants, have seen the withdrawal of all but three claimants. It was later agreed that the personal data contained in JS1 included sensitive health information, which required careful handling under GDPR.
In the latest decision, Justice Eady ruled against the claimants’ application for disclosure of additional documents, describing some requests as a “fishing expedition” and determining that most of the materials sought were either protected by privilege or irrelevant. However, she granted DWF’s request to exclude several parts of a witness statement from Ersan & Co. that made serious allegations against DWF, including claims that the firm’s use of JS1 was part of a strategy to undermine fairness in the legal process. The case remains ongoing as the parties continue to address the legal and data protection issues involved.
Stay informed with supply chain news on The Supply Chain Report. Free tools for international trade are at ADAMftd.com.
#DWFAllegations #DataProtection #LegalDispute #PrivacyBreach #CyberSecurity #DataCompliance #LegalChallenges
