Hellard and Richardson v Bois Bois and another [2025] JRC 003

This case concerns an application by Mr. Kalouti (Mr Kalouti) to be joined to previous legal proceedings and to have a 2020 Royal Court judgment (the 2020 Judgment) either redacted or endorsed with a disclaimer regarding allegations made about him. The 2020 Judgment related to a Norwich Pharmacal application by liquidators relating to companies ultimately owned by the Maluf family.  These companies, Durant, Kildare, and MacDoel, were found to have received proceeds of fraud committed in Brazil in 1997 and 1998. Mr. Kalouti was described in the 2020 Judgment as having long-standing links with the Maluf family and having been a director of all three companies at various times.

Mr. Kalouti discovered the 2020 Judgment in November 2022, nearly two and a half years after its publication. The discovery occurred during a potential business sale, which was immediately suspended when the purchaser became aware of the 2020 Judgment. The 2020 Judgment contained allegations suggesting Mr. Kalouti’s potential involvement in fraud and money laundering, which he strongly denied.

Mr. Kalouti sought to be joined to the original proceedings, have the 2020 Judgment redacted to protect his identity, and have a disclaimer added stating he was not notified of the original proceedings and no conclusive findings were made against him. The Royal Court considered several key legal principles, including the fundamental importance of open justice, the potential engagement of Article 8 rights (right to privacy), and the necessity of balancing competing rights.

The Court ultimately rejected Mr. Kalouti’s application, concluding that the original proceedings had concluded in 2020, there were no actual findings of wrongdoing against Mr. Kalouti, the allegations were made by liquidators and not determined as fact, and the applicant did not provide sufficiently clear evidence of harm. While declining to redact the 2020 Judgment, the Court offered to add a link to this judgment, include a statement clarifying that the allegations were not findings, and emphasise that the allegations were made in proceedings to which Mr. Kalouti was not a party.

The case provides important guidance on the principles of open justice, the threshold for redacting published judgments, and the interpretation of Article 8 privacy rights in judicial contexts. The judgment underscores the high bar for interfering with published court documents and the importance of maintaining transparency in judicial proceedings.