MAURITIUS Law and Practice Contributed by: Sivakumaren (Robin) Mardemootoo, Natasha Behary Paray and Jeeshna (Kaajal) Radhakissoon, Dentons Mauritius LLP
6.5 Interim Injunctions The Supreme Court may, in the exercise of its equi- table jurisdiction, grant interim relief in the form of injunctions. The most common forms of interim injunc- tive relief sought before the court include prohibi- tory injunctions, Mareva injunctions (freezing orders), Anton Piller orders and anti-suit injunctions. Such applications are typically made in circumstances of urgency, and are made before the judge in cham- bers by way of praecipe supported by an affidavit detailing the remedy claimed and setting out the writ- ten and documentary evidence substantiating the grounds for the application. In determining whether to grant interim relief, the judge in chambers will typi- cally apply the common law principles governing the form of relief sought. The time within which the court acts on such applica- tions will depend on the circumstances. In practice, interim orders are usually granted either on the same day or within one to two working days of the applica- tion being made. In highly exceptional circumstances where extreme urgency can be demonstrated, appli- cations may be made and orders granted outside normal court hours, though this is rarely the case in a commercial context. 6.6 Summary Judgment Save in very specific instances, Mauritian courts do not generally deliver summary judgments and typi- cally prefer to address all relevant legal issues in a single judgment. However, it is not uncommon for the court to entertain certain points of law at the outset, raised as plea in limine litis, which may be heard and determined on the points of law without the need to adduce evidence, or on the basis of a limited amount of evidence. Mauritian law also provides for what is known as the référé procedure under Article 806 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby a summary remedy can be grant- ed if the matter is urgent and a litigant can show that it has a clear legal right and that the respondent cannot show a bona fide and serious defence. It is mainly used by owners of land to obtain a writ of possession, but the grant of the order and the entry into posses- sion by the applicant does not prevent the defendant
from commencing a “principal case” claiming that it has a better title. This is, however, not akin to a sum- mary judgment available in common law jurisdictions. 7. Mass Claims and Class Actions 7.1 Procedural Mechanisms Class actions do not exist under Mauritian law. All persons seeking a remedy before the courts must be individually named as parties, although they may des- ignate one of their number to act as representative for the purposes of the proceedings, including attend- ance at court and the giving of evidence. A limited exception exists in the context of judicial review, particularly in environmental matters, where courts have recognised the standing of environmen- tal NGOs to challenge decisions that may adversely affect the environment. Such standing, however, does not constitute a “class action” mechanism and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. 7.2 Standing Requirements Class action mechanisms are not available under Mauritian law. 7.3 Relief Class action mechanisms are not available under Mauritian law. 7.4 Class Actions, Mass Claims and Arbitration Class action mechanisms, including in arbitration, are not available under Mauritian law. The concept of mass claims is not prohibited under Mauritian law, but, in the case of litigation, litigants are required to prove a material personal interest in the subject mat- ter of the dispute to establish their locus standi. There has been no report of any mass claims in the context of arbitration in Mauritius, and this is not surprising in view of the confidential nature of arbitral proceed- ings; however, it is not unreasonable to assume that a material personal interest would be needed in the context of an arbitration as well.
352 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook