A bitter legal dispute ranging across a number of cases and
jurisdictions is raging between three companies, one a state-owned
company in Tajikstan, another the Russian firm which is the third
biggest aluminium producer in the world and the last a
Guernsey-based company.
The Guernsey company, Ansol, and its UK advisors, Ashton, claim
that the Russian aluminium firm, Rusal, and the Tajikstan company,
TadAZ, stole its business in assisting Tajikstan in producing
aluminium.
The three companies are locked in a series of bitter legal
battles over the situation and thousands of files and computers
have been frozen and seized in the process.
Ashton's computer system in London was broken into from an
internet address belonging to Rusal, as well as from a number of
other addresses, including many in Russia. Ashton and Ansol claim
that Rusal is behind the digital break-ins, and that it was trying
to obtain information that would be of use in the court
battles.
Rusal denies accessing Ashton's system and says that the IP
address could have been used by someone outside of the company via
the firm's Wi-Fi network, which at that time was not secure.
Rusal's legal team argued that there was no serious case to be
tried because the claim that a Rusal employee had hacked into the
system could not be sustained. In order for the court to try the
case, there must be a 'serious case'.
Jonathan Hirst QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court,
said in his ruling that he disagreed. "The Claimants are making
extremely serious allegations against the Defendants, involving
conduct which would be criminal under sections 1 and 2 of the
Computer Misuse Act 1990, and which would constitute an outrageous
attempt to gain access to privileged information held by the other
party to litigation, and will have to produce commensurate proof,"
he wrote. "I am satisfied that the Claimants have shown that there
is a serious issue to be tried. They have done more than just
scrape over the hurdle."
Hirst said that some of the evidence before the court, "on one
interpretation, show an unhealthy interest on the part of Rusal in
the documents held by the Claimants and on Ashton's server, and
which could be seen as consistent with Rusal having obtained
access".
The case was brought against two Rusal companies but also
against its chairman and chief executive, Oleg Vladimirovich
Deripaska and Alexander Stanislavovich Bulygin, respectively. Hirst
ruled that only the companies, and not those individuals, could be
parties to the case. "In my judgment, the case that the individual
defendants were behind the hacking into Ashton's server goes beyond
what might be a legitimate inference and enters the realms of
conjecture. Rusal is a very large group with thousands of
employees," he wrote.
A crucial question for the court was whether the acts took place
in England or Russia, and therefore whose law and jurisdiction
applies. Hirst said that the actions did take place in England.
"Ashton's computer server was in London. That is where the
confidential and privileged information was stored," he wrote. "The
attack emanated from Russia but it was directed at the server in
London and that is where the hacking occurred. The fact that it was
transmitted almost instantly to Russia does not mean that the
damage occurred only in Russia. If a thief steals a confidential
letter in London but does not read it until he is abroad, damage
surely occurs in London."
"I also consider that substantial and efficacious acts occurred
in London, as well as Russia. That is where the hacking occurred
and access to the server was achieved. This may have been as a
result of actions taken in Russia but they were designed to make
things happen in London, and they did so," wrote Hirst.
"Effectively the safe was opened from afar so that its contents
could be removed. It would be artificial to say that the acts
occurred only in Russia. On the contrary, substantial and effective
acts occurred in London."
Though Rusal argued that Russia was the natural forum for the
case, Hirst said that England was the right place for the trial to
be heard, because the principal witnesses were there and because
there were some technical difficulties in Russian law which would
make a conviction difficult to obtain.
He said that an English court was also the right venue for the
case because of the additional expense involved in a Russian action
and the fact that "the most significant element of the events
occurred in London – I regard the unauthorised access to the server
as being by far and away the most significant element of the events
which occurred".
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
