The Court of Appeal has dismissed a group of data protection claims brought against DWF Law LLP, finding that the case advanced by the claimants had changed substantially and, in particular, that a new argument was introduced at a very late stage without the court’s permission.
The case, Kul & Ors v DWF Law LLP, concerned the use of personal information in personal injury litigation. DWF had acted in defending personal injury claims and had used information concerning some of the individuals involved in other litigation to support allegations that the claims were fundamentally dishonest.
The original proceedings involved 127 individuals, although 124 of those claims were discontinued before reaching trial. The remaining claims were rejected following a trial before Mrs Justice Eady, who concluded that DWF’s processing of the relevant personal data was lawful, fair and compliant.
The claimants subsequently appealed, arguing that the processing of their personal information was disproportionate and breached requirements under the UK GDPR. They also sought findings concerning potential future processing of their personal data.
The Court of Appeal found that the argument concerning future processing represented a new case that had not previously been properly pleaded. The issue had not been raised in the appropriate form before the appeal hearing and the claimants had not sought permission to amend their case.
Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Warby considered that allowing the new argument at such a late stage would cause prejudice to DWF and would not be justified by the merits of the proposed case. The court also noted that the position advanced by the claimants had changed during the proceedings and even during the appeal itself.
The judgment highlighted the importance of parties maintaining a consistent and properly pleaded case, particularly when proceedings have reached the appeal stage. The court noted that no amended particulars of claim or amended grounds of appeal had been provided and that no adequate explanation had been given for raising the new argument so late.
Although the court did not formally characterise the appeal as an abuse of process, it criticised the way the litigation had been conducted. The judgment concluded that the appeal had resulted in an unusual and unnecessary expenditure of court time and resources.
The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully preparing and maintaining a properly pleaded case throughout litigation. Parties seeking to introduce significant new arguments at an advanced stage may face procedural difficulties, particularly where the change could unfairly prejudice the opposing party.
For businesses and individuals involved in data protection disputes, the decision also demonstrates the importance of clearly identifying the legal basis and scope of a claim from the outset and following the appropriate procedures when seeking to change the case during litigation.
