UK court allows the businessman to sue law firm over hacked emails2 min read

BY- HARDIK SINGH

The Division of the court of Justice of England and Wales on Friday had permitted an Iranian-American businessman to sue Dechert LLP for hacking into his email account and unseaworthy his data on BitTorrent sites.

The aviation tycoon Farhad Azima alleges that the International Law firm employed illegal hackers to steal privileged data concerning his business, resulting in a London decision holding him responsible for defrauding the sovereign wealth fund of United Arab Emirates’s Ras Al Khaimah emirate.

Azima had been ordered by the court to pay $4.1 million in compensation to the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) by the court in May 2020. He claimed that RAKIA based its case on materials taken by mercenary hackers from 2 Indian corporations, BellTroX InfoTech Services and CyberRoot Risk consultatory. He also claims that he was targeted during a bigger campaign against former RAKIA director Dr. Khater Massaad, who was removed by the sheik Saud government on charges of corruption.

Azima at first lost his hacking counterclaim because of lack of “sufficiently cogent evidence” however was given leave to appeal by the Court of Attraction last year. In March 2021, the united kingdom Court of attractiveness remitted the case for trial to the court in light of recent proof on the extent and nature of the alleged hacking campaign. Dechert, Gerrard, Buchanan, and Page dropped their opposition at the minute, a lawyer for Azima told the court.

“The additional defendants all currently consent to joinder,” aforesaid Tim Lord of Brick Court Chambers, according to a transcript of the proceedings. Messages seeking comment from Page and Buchanan weren’t straightaway returned.

With the ruling on Friday, each Dechert LLP and its retired partner Neil Gerrard are added as co-defendants within the continued case by Azima against RAKIA. The Court of appeal has already commanded that the 2020 call in favor of RAKIA won’t be altered no matter the judgment in Azima’s counterclaim.

ALSO READ: HC: Article 20(3) isn’t violated if Magistrate directs accused to give voice samples during investigation sans consent