MAURITIUS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ali Adamjee and Raza Currimjee, Chambers of Sir Hamid Moollan KC
Introduction Mauritius enjoys a longstanding reputation as a safe and stable offshore jurisdiction with a mature and sophisticated judiciary that includes a specialist com - mercial division and a bench of specialist “Designated Judges” who hear all court applications related to international arbitration and the enforcement of for - eign arbitral awards under the New York Convention. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final appellate court of Mauritius, and this provides a degree of assurance to both local and international users that their most complex and difficult appeals will be heard by eminently qualified jurists. The attractiveness of Mauritius as a financial services centre and offshore jurisdiction of international repute not only depends on the administrative ease of doing business but also on the user friendliness of the legal system and a judicial system which supports the busi - ness community. In the 2025 Government Programme, it has been stated that a separate Court of Appeal will be set up together with an international investment and com - mercial court. These reforms seek to further the attractiveness of Mauritius as a safe and efficient juris - diction for the resolution of international commercial and investment disputes. As an increasingly mature financial services centre, in recent years Mauritius has seen a steady increase in cross-border disputes where it has become an impor - tant jurisdiction for asset recovery and the enforce - ment of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. A sur - vey of decisions on these matters over the last twenty years shows that the Mauritian courts have demon - strated a pro-enforcement approach to the recogni - tion and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Whilst the legal regime for the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards is entirely dis - tinct, a common theme emerges: the cases show that the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement are limited and the courts have given short shrift to procedural arguments invoked by recalcitrant debtors to frustrate the recognition and enforcement of judg - ments and arbitral awards.
The Mauritian courts also possess powerful tools in their armoury to lend their supportive powers to the preservation of assets to ensure that the enforcement of judgments is not rendered nugatory by defaulting debtors. The courts have the power to grant freezing injunctive relief (including without notice worldwide freezing injunctions) and Norwich Pharmacal orders to prevent potential judgment debtors from dissipat - ing assets. As a result of the country’s colonial heritage, Mauritian law is a hybrid system of law that draws its inspira - tion from France and from England. The practice of Mauritian law, both procedurally and substantively, is markedly comparative in nature and it is still largely influenced by concepts of French law and English law which have been retained into Mauritian law. It is not uncommon to find references to decisions of the French Cour de cassation and French doctrinal writings alongside passages from decisions of the UK Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) and Dicey Morris and Collins (the leading English law text - book on private international law) in Mauritian judg - ments on the recognition and enforcement of judg - ments. In the context of arbitral award enforcement cases, there is also increasing reference to decisions of the Singapore courts. Recognition (Exequatur) Integrates the Foreign Judgment into the Mauritian Legal Order As the operation of legal systems does not have extra - territorial effect, foreign judgments have no direct operation in Mauritius. Foreign judgments are given legal effect within the Mauritian legal order through their recognition by the Supreme Court of Mauritius. As with many civil law jurisdictions, this process is termed as exequatur proceedings. In Weston International Asset Recovery v Chilton [2018] SCJ 37, the Supreme Court refused to recog - nise a judgment debt arising under a judgment of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI Court”) in Mauritius where the judg - ment of the BVI Court had not first been recognised by the Mauritian courts. The Supreme Court observed that a judgment of a foreign court does not produce legal rights in Mauritius unless and until it has been “declared executory by the local courts following
293 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook