Judge shuts down bid for secret files in personal injury data row, calling it a fishing expedition
A High Court judge has rejected a personal injury law firm’s attempt to access confidential communications between rival solicitors and insurance companies, dismissing the move as a baseless “fishing expedition” in the ongoing data protection claim.
Mrs. Justice Jennifer Eady DBE ruled in favour of DWF Law after the claimant firm Ersan & Co demanded access to private correspondence, meeting notes, and internal records linked to a long-running data protection case. The judge found no grounds for such disclosure, stating that the material was privileged and formed as part of a litigation strategy.
The legal battle stems from personal injury claims stretching back over six years. At its core, Ersan & Co alleges that DWF processed far more personal data than necessary while compiling files on 372 separate injury claims—each one involving Ersan’s former clients.
DWF had assembled those files based on information from 18 insurer clients and later used the data to challenge claims on grounds of fundamental dishonesty. Among the dossiers were the personal details of three individuals now pursuing claims under UK GDPR rules. Originally, 137 claimants were listed, but only three have continued with the case.
Ersan accuses DWF of processing the data unlawfully and without adequate justification, arguing that the communications between DWF and the insurers are central to proving whether there was a lawful reason for the data-sharing. The firm applied for specific disclosure of internal discussions, arguing they could expose a breach of data rights.
Embed from Getty ImagesBut DWF hit back firmly, insisting the documents were legally privileged and confidential. Their team argued that the entire claim amounted to an effort to relitigate settled issues and should not be permitted to stray into protected territory. They maintained that the communications in question, including those from DWF Forensics Limited—a wholly owned subsidiary—were created with litigation in mind and were thus shielded by legal privilege.
The firm further described the disclosure request as “so poorly defined as to be scarcely intelligible”, asserting that the claimant was grasping at straws in a last-ditch effort to salvage its position. They said any attempt to dig into similar data-sharing activities outside the Ersan cases was flawed and speculative.
Agreeing with the defence, Mrs Justice Eady found no merit in Ersan & Co’s sweeping request. She ruled that communications between DWF and its insurer clients clearly fell within legal privilege and were created with litigation as the dominant purpose—a fact embedded in the very nature of the complaint.
She rejected the suggestion that these discussions should be opened up to scrutiny, warning that allowing such disclosure would stretch the principles of legal privilege far beyond their intended bounds. “This application is, in part, a fishing expedition,” the judge concluded, noting that the vague and overreaching nature of the claim lacked any solid legal foundation.
The judge’s ruling now clears the way for a two-day trial later this year, where the remaining three claimants will attempt to prove that DWF’s data handling breached privacy laws. But without access to the inner workings of DWF’s strategy and insurer communications, Ersan & Co may find their path to victory significantly narrowed.
The case offers a sharp reminder of the limits of legal disclosure and the enduring protection of privileged litigation discussions—even when the opposing side believes something sinister lies beneath.
