Commercial disputes in Mauritius are resolved either through litigation before the competent courts and tribunals or through various alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms – principally negotiation, mediation and arbitration.

Litigation

The primary forum for the determination of commercial disputes for a sum exceeding MUR2 million is the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, which is empowered to hear and determine matters under the Insolvency Act, the Companies Act, any matter relating to banking, bills of exchange, offshore business, patents and trade marks, and any contractual matters.

Arbitration

Arbitration is also a popular dispute resolution mechanism, and Mauritius has two different regimes applicable to domestic and international arbitration proceedings. Purely domestic arbitrations are governed by Code of Civil Procedure 1808 and reflect French law on domestic arbitrations prior to the reform of 2012. In contrast, international arbitrations seated in Mauritius are governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law, the International Arbitration Act 2008 and the related legislation. Mauritius is also a party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which allows for the recognition and enforcement of awards made outside Mauritius.

Mediation

Litigants may also resort to mediation, through dispute resolution providers such as the Mediation and Arbitration Center. Although Mauritius has signed the Singapore Convention on Mediation, its provisions have not been implemented into Mauritian law yet. Mauritius also does not have a formalised process for mediation, as it does for arbitration.

Mediation may also be conducted before the Mediation Division of the Supreme Court or Intermediate Court of Mauritius, following a referral of a dispute to mediation by the Chief Justice or by the President of the Civil Division of the Intermediate Court, respectively, of their own motion, or upon a joint request by the parties.

Negotiation

Parties often reach a negotiated settlement, prior to or even during arbitration or litigation proceedings. Parties can also opt to have their settlement agreement ratified by court, which renders the settlement terms executory in a manner similar to a judgment by the court.

Litigation remains the most widely used mechanism for the resolution of commercial disputes in Mauritius, owing to the established role of the courts, the familiarity of most legal practitioners and the relatively low costs associated with court processes.

Arbitration has nonetheless gained considerable ground in recent years, particularly in the construction, corporate and real estate sectors, where parties value its flexibility, confidentiality, and access to specialist decision-makers. Most standard-form construction contracts incorporate arbitration clauses as default.

Mediation remains comparatively under-utilised, including before the courts, largely due to voluntary nature of the referral to mediation and the absence of a comprehensive legislative framework providing for the effective enforcement of mediation settlement agreements.

In Mauritius, commercial litigation is expected to remain the predominant means of resolving commercial disputes, although arbitration is gradually gaining prominence. Furthermore, Mauritius is also increasingly positioning itself as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction and a neutral seat for international arbitration, especially in relation to Africa-related disputes, a trend that is likely to accelerate in the context of current geopolitical tensions.

The expanding profile of the Mauritius International Financial Centre and the relative political stability in Mauritius has further contributed to a growing volume of cross-border enforcement proceedings, reflecting the jurisdiction’s broader ambition to cement its standing as a leading dispute resolution hub for the region.

On the modernisation front, the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court has already transitioned to a fully operational e-filing system. For the near future, there appears to be a clear momentum towards the specialisation of court divisions and a broader digitalisation of court procedure through virtual hearings and digital case management to improve efficiency and reduce delays.

There is also an increasing move away from oral advocacy before the Mauritian courts, and a preference for written forms of advocacy, through written submissions, whether at the conclusion of a trial on facts, or for points of law or on appeal. The duration of court hearings is thus heavily curtailed.

The Mauritian Civil Code (MCC) provides the principal framework governing limitation periods in Mauritius. As a general rule, all personal actions are subject to a limitation period of ten years from the date on which the plaintiff has an actionable claim against the defendant, though there are exceptions contained in the MCC itself and in certain statutes, such as the Trusts Act, which provide for shorter prescription periods. For instance, under the MCC, claims for payments that are recurrent at annual or shorter intervals (eg, rent) are subject to a three-year time bar. For actions to claim the nullity of any contract, this is five years. Actions in rem – that is, actions relating to immovable property rights – are subject to a longer limitation period of 30 years.

The Public Officers Protection Act provides for a reduced prescription period of two years in respect of actions brought regarding public officers or persons engaged in the performance of a public duty. The State Proceedings Act allows the State to benefit from the same reduced limitation period where the liability of the State is being impugned for the negligence of public officers.

In the context of judicial review, applications challenging executive decisions must be filed within 45 days of the date of the administrative decision. This period may, however, be extended at the discretion of a judge where the applicant is able to demonstrate good cause for the delay.

In the context of applications for constitutional relief, the action must be brought within three months of the right of action arising.

Mauritius has a single-structured judicial system comprising the Courts of Civil and Criminal Appeals, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Mauritius and subordinate courts – which include the Intermediate Court, the Industrial Court, District Courts, the Bail and Remand Court, and the Court of Rodrigues.

Under Section 76 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Mauritius has unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine civil and criminal proceedings under any law, except matters governed by disciplinary law, as well as any other jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or legislation.

The Supreme Court is also divided into several divisions – namely:

• the Bankruptcy Division/Commercial Division;
• the Family Division;
• the Financial Crimes Division;
• the Land Division; and
• the Mediation Division.

The Supreme Court also exercises appellate jurisdiction over lower courts in both civil and criminal matters, as well as over specialised tribunals such as the Revenue Tribunal and the Environment and Land Use Appeal Tribunal.

Decisions of the Court of Civil Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal, and certain decisions of the Supreme Court (including matters involving public law, international arbitration and appeal decisions) may be further appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which serves as the highest court of appeal for Mauritius.

As a general rule, there are no mandatory pre-action requirements in Mauritian Law that must be satisfied prior to commencing proceedings, save for certain exceptions provided for by law.

However, in practice, most litigants are expected to serve a legal notice (mise en demeure) on the defaulting party before commencing proceedings. The mise en demeure, which is drafted and signed by an attorney-at-law, typically sets out the litigant’s claim and calls upon the defaulting party to remedy the breach, failing which proceedings will be commenced together with a claim for interest. Interest may only be claimed as from the date of service of the mise en demeure in most cases.

Legal Notice

There are certain circumstances in which a legal notice is mandatory as a matter of law, as follows.

Contractual actions

A plaintiff’s right to claim a breach of contract may not accrue unless prior notice has been given calling upon the defendant to perform its obligations. This requirement is dispensed with where the contract itself has excluded it or where the contractual obligation was to be performed within a time limit that has since lapsed.

Actions against the State

Where a party intends to sue the State of Mauritius, the plaintiff must give one month’s prior written notice of the intended action and the subject matter of the complaint before lodging a claim. The limitation period for actions against the State is two years from the date the cause of action arose where the liability of the State is being impugned for the negligence of public officers, and failure to comply with these requirements is fatal to the action.

Pre-Action Steps

There are also procedural pre-action steps required in specific cases, as follows.

Service outside the jurisdiction

Where proceedings are to be served on a defendant domiciled outside Mauritius, the plaintiff must first obtain leave from the judge in chambers by way of ex parte application by praecipe to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction. The application must demonstrate a good cause of action, identifying where the defendant may be found, indicating whether the defendant is a Commonwealth citizen, and stating the grounds of the application.

Judicial review

An applicant must have exhausted all available alternative remedies, such as appeals before an executive body or tribunal, before the court will entertain a judicial review application.

Court proceedings in civil cases typically differ based on the nature of the action entered and the relief sought. Usually, the process in an ordinary claim would be as follows:

• the plaintiff files the initiating process and pays the related court fees;
• the initiating process is served on the other parties to the case;
• the other parties put in an appearance, either personally or through their legal advisers, to inform the court whether the case is defended and, if so, whether they will retain the services of legal advisers;
• the other parties may ask for particulars of the claim in a demand of particulars, and the plaintiff follows with an answer to particulars;
• further exchanges of particulars may take place, limited to issues arising from the first round of exchange of particulars;
• the other parties then file their plea, which may contain a counterclaim; and
• if there is a counterclaim, the plaintiff can ask for particulars of the counterclaim, which must be answered by the counterclaimant before the plaintiff files its plea to the counterclaim.

The exchange of these pleadings is overseen by the court, which also rules on any procedural issues that may arise.

In cases where the proceedings are lodged by way of a praecipe or motion paper, which are supported by affidavits, affidavits are exchanged between the parties by way of pleadings, as opposed to the exchange of particulars.

After the pleadings stage and before the case is heard on the merits, parties exchange their list of witnesses in accordance with the statutory delay (depending on the jurisdiction they are before) and give advance notice of the documents that will be tendered during the hearing.

The trial or hearing stage is the stage whereby both parties set out their case, witnesses testify, and evidence is examined. After the hearing or trial, the judge or magistrate will need to deliver a judgment.

For a civil case, the standard of proof is generally a balance of probabilities (more likely than not) and, except in the case of presumptions established by law, the burden of proof lies with the party making a claim.

Section 10 of the Constitution of Mauritius guarantees litigants the right to have their case heard in public. Nonetheless, exceptions to this principle exist – applications made before the judge in chambers are ordinarily heard in private. In certain cases, the court may exercise its discretion to hold proceedings in private where the proceedings relate to a child, for reasons of national security or where the proceedings involve a secret process.

As regards disputes that are confidential, it must be noted that, while proceedings under the International Arbitration Act 2008 are in principle held in public, the Supreme Court has the power to make a confidentiality order pursuant to that Act, by virtue of which hearings may be conducted in private.

The Supreme Court may grant interim relief both in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction and pursuant to applications brought under the Code of Civil Procedure or the MCC.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, an applicant may seek provisional attachment orders pursuant to saisie-arrêt (seizure order) or saisie conservatoire (conservatory seizure) procedures before the judge in chambers, provided that the applicant is able to establish a clear legal right and that the respondent does not have a valid defence to the claim.

Interim relief may also be sought under the equitable jurisdiction of the court, in the form of prohibitory injunctions, freezing orders and disclosure orders, among others. Applications for such relief are made before the judge in chambers. In determining whether to grant such relief, Mauritian courts often apply the same tests and criteria as those applied by English courts.

Interim relief is often sought before the Mauritian courts, particularly in commercial and land disputes, and is also available in the context of arbitration proceedings under the International Arbitration Act.

Mauritian law provides for a variety of remedies in commercial litigation, reflecting the jurisdiction’s hybrid legal system. Compensatory damages remain the most commonly sought form of relief. In line with French civil law principles, Mauritian courts may also order specific performance, compelling a party to fulfil its contractual obligations.

Additionally, in the exercise of their equitable jurisdiction, Mauritian courts may grant permanent injunctions to restrain a party from acting in breach of a legal right or obligation. In the context of commercial litigation, the Bankruptcy Division may also order the appointment of a receiver, an administrator or the liquidation of Mauritian companies in specific circumstances. In other cases, the court may give directions to the company or to an insolvency practitioner.

Mauritian law closely follows French law principles on the award of damages, notably the principle of réparation intégrale (complete reparation), which requires that compensation awarded to a successful claimant be commensurate with the actual loss suffered. As a corollary to this principle, punitive damages are not available under Mauritian law.

In tort, claimants may only recover damages that are certain and directly attributable to the wrongful act. In contract, recoverable damages are limited to losses that were foreseen at the time of contracting or that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the breach. An exception applies where the contractual breach is attributable to dol – that is, fraud or gross negligence – in which case the defaulting party is liable for all losses that are a direct and certain consequence of the breach, regardless of foreseeability.       

While litigation remains the predominant dispute resolution mechanism in Mauritius, arbitration is well established, supported by the judiciary and growing in prevalence, particularly in construction, real estate and corporate disputes.

In the construction sector, high-value projects are routinely referred to domestic arbitration. Most standard-form contracts already provide for arbitration as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism, and Mauritian parties typically amend these clauses to provide for domestic arbitration governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, including in contracts with public entities.

Corporate disputes involving shareholder rights, joint ventures and investment agreements are also commonly submitted to arbitration, particularly where offshore or global business companies incorporated in Mauritius are concerned. Corporate constitutions and shareholders’ agreements of such entities frequently contain arbitration clauses.

Beyond the above sectors, many commercial contracts involving foreign parties in a variety of sectors such as intellectual property, energy, media, finance and shipping also contain arbitration clauses, and disputes arising from them are routinely referred to arbitration.

There is no predetermined list of disputes that cannot be referred to arbitration in Mauritius, and the courts have yet to make a definitive pronouncement on the matter. However, a restriction can be presumed to exist on disputes directly adjudicating matters reserved to public order, such as matters involving the capacity of persons, insolvency proceedings, family and matrimonial matters, and criminal matters.

Further, in the context of international arbitration, the International Arbitration Act 2008 also restricts the arbitration of consumer disputes. Disputes involving consumers can only be referred to arbitration where the consumer enters into a new arbitration agreement after the dispute has arisen and upon the consumer certifying that they have read, understood and agree to be bound by the arbitration agreement.

Arbitration is generally perceived as being a much more efficient and flexible means of resolving certain disputes, particularly those involving contractual and corporate matters, when compared to litigation before the Mauritian courts and its associated delays. Arbitration also affords parties the benefit of having their dispute determined by specialist adjudicators with substantial and practical expertise in the relevant sector or subject matter. The flexibility characterising arbitration proceedings often allows parties to agree on the procedural calendar and benefit from an expedited hearing.

A significant practical advantage of arbitration in Mauritius is also its treatment of costs. Unlike litigation, where costs recovery is subject to statutory caps and represents a minimal fraction of real costs incurred by a party, arbitration usually allows a successful party to potentially recover its legal costs in full, making it a more attractive option for high-value disputes.

Another major advantage of arbitration is the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings, which are essential in certain types of disputes, such as offshore and corporate disputes. This allows parties who have a legitimate interest in keeping the existence and outcome of proceedings out of the public domain to protect themselves. The free movement of the arbitral award under the New York Convention is also a major advantage for cross-border cases where enforcement outside Mauritius may be envisaged.

Arbitration is generally considered more expensive than litigation, rendering it a less suitable option for smaller commercial disputes where the costs of the process may be disproportionate to the value of the claim. In international arbitrations specifically, parties frequently engage specialist counsel (although this is a matter of practice more than a requirement), which can drive legal costs considerably higher than those typically incurred in court proceedings.

While the absence of a cap on costs recovery is an advantage for successful parties, it also means that the overall costs of arbitration proceedings are uncapped and can escalate significantly, particularly in complex or protracted disputes. The existence of institutional rules that allow for review of arbitrators’ fees and the discretion of arbitrators to award costs go some way in dealing with this issue.

In practice, the absence of recourse to an appeal process and the inability to compel the attendance of witnesses may also be disadvantageous.

Mauritius has two principal arbitral institutions: the Mauritius International Arbitration Centre (MIAC) and the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry Arbitration Centre (MARC). MIAC focuses primarily on international arbitrations, while MARC administers both domestic and international disputes.

Mauritius also hosts a regional office of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which plays an important role in promoting arbitration across the region. Notably, the PCA has been designated as the default appointing authority for all ad hoc international arbitrations conducted under the International Arbitration Act 2008.

There is no fixed duration for arbitral proceedings in Mauritius, especially since the principle underlying most arbitration is the will of the parties.

Institutional arbitrations typically last around 18 months on average, though this will vary depending on a range of factors, including whether the arbitration is ad hoc or institutional, the number of arbitrators, the complexity of the dispute, and procedural considerations such as the availability of counsel, the number of witnesses, the procedural calendar and the existence of any interim applications.

Where the applicable institutional rules permit, such as under the MARC Rules, and subject to the agreement of the parties and the tribunal, proceedings may be conducted on an expedited basis, resulting in a materially shorter timeframe.

In the context of domestic arbitrations, the Code of Civil Procedure does limit the mandate of the arbitrator to six months, although this may be extended by agreement of the parties. Most domestic arbitrations are not concluded within six months, and extensions are common.

Mauritian law draws a clear distinction between domestic and international arbitration, with each subject to its own distinct legal regime.

International arbitration is governed by the International Arbitration Act 2008, which sets out the procedural framework for international arbitrations seated in Mauritius, and the process for recognition and enforcement of resulting awards. By contrast, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (that is, delivered following an arbitration seated outside Mauritius) is regulated by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001 (the “Convention”).

Arbitration or enforcement claims made under the International Arbitration Act 2008 and the Convention are also regulated by the Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013.

Proceedings brought before the courts under both instruments are further subject to the specialised procedural framework established by the Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013.

Domestic arbitration, by contrast, is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1808 and the procedural rules of the arbitration would differ on the basis of whether parties elected for ad hoc arbitration or institutional arbitration. The Code of Civil Procedure 1808 also prescribes the procedure for exequatur of a domestic award.

Finally, the enforcement of awards rendered under the ICSID Convention is provided for under the Investment Disputes (Enforcement of Awards) Act.

In line with the pro-arbitration approach of Mauritian law, the Supreme Court is vested with several powers to support arbitral tribunals in the discharge of their functions, both under the domestic arbitration regime and under the International Arbitration Act 2008.

For international arbitrations falling under the scope of the International Arbitration Act 2008, the Supreme Court may:

• order interim measures in support of international arbitral proceedings, whether seated in Mauritius or not;
• recognise and enforce interim measures granted by an arbitral tribunal, whether seated in Mauritius or not;
• assist an arbitral tribunal or a party, having secured the leave of the tribunal, in taking evidence, whether by issuing a witness summons compelling the attendance of any person before the tribunal to give evidence or produce documents, or by ordering a witness to submit to examination on oath before the tribunal or an officer of the court;
• recognise and enforce an international arbitral award in the same manner as a final judgment of the court;
• where the parties have expressly agreed and incorporated the First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act 2008, determine a preliminary point of Mauritian law upon application by a party, either with the consent of the arbitral tribunal or of all other parties; and
• where the parties have expressly agreed and incorporated the First Schedule of the International Arbitration Act 2008, hear an appeal on a question of Mauritian law; and
• deal with applications for setting-aside of an award delivered by an arbitral tribunal seated in Mauritius, on grounds which mirror those set out under Article V of the New York Convention.

For domestic arbitrations, the Code of Civil Procedure provides broader powers for courts to support arbitration proceedings, pursuant to which the Supreme Court may:

• appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators upon application by any party to the arbitration agreement, provided that reference is made to the court’s power to make such appointment;
• extend the duration of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal upon application of a party; and
• enforce a domestic arbitral award through the exequatur process.       

For international arbitrations, the International Arbitration Act 2008 enshrines the principle of competence-competence and a strict judicial non-intervention principle, which Mauritian courts generally follow. Save where the law expressly permits judicial involvement, whether in support of arbitration proceedings or in the exercise of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the courts is ousted.

Under the International Arbitration Act 2008, court intervention is only permitted in the following circumstances.

• To enforce the negative effect of competence-competence: where a party to court proceedings invokes an arbitration agreement at the first opportunity, the matter will be referred to arbitration unless the other party can establish, on a prima facie basis, a very strong probability that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
• Where the arbitral tribunal rules on a jurisdictional plea on a preliminary basis, any party may, within 30 days of receiving notice of that ruling, request the Supreme Court to decide the matter. The arbitral tribunal may continue proceedings and make awards while the request is pending.
• The Supreme Court may set aside an arbitral award on the limited grounds provided under Section 39, including absence of jurisdiction.

For domestic arbitrations, the courts adopt a similarly limited approach, though the precise extent of intervention will depend on the circumstances. Mauritian courts will typically adhere to the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, pursuant to which courts are prohibited from hearing litigation relating to the exercise, validity or scope of an arbitration agreement other than on a prima facie basis.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a party may challenge a domestic arbitral award either by way of appeal, where the parties have not waived that right in their arbitration agreement, or by applying for annulment of the award by way of appeal for annulment.

Under the International Arbitration Act 2008, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, an arbitral tribunal has broad powers to grant relief. These include the power to make declarations as to any matter to be determined in the proceedings, order the payment of a sum of money in any currency, and award simple or compound interest for such period and at such rate as the tribunal considers just. The tribunal also has the same powers as a Mauritian court to order a party to do or refrain from doing anything, to order specific performance of a contract, and to order the rectification, setting-aside or cancellation of a deed or other document. This is also the case for domestic arbitrations.

In relation to interim relief, the International Arbitration Act also permits arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures at the request of a party before making a final award. Such measures are broad in scope and may include orders to:

• maintain or restore the status quo;
• prevent action likely to cause imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process;
• preserve assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied;
• preserve relevant evidence; or
• provide security for costs.

The tribunal’s power to grant interim measures may however be excluded by agreement of the parties.

The Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly provide for interim measures or relief in cases of domestic arbitration, but this is generally granted in the exercise of the court’s equitable powers.

Beyond litigation and arbitration, parties are generally free to decide on other ADR mechanisms, including mediation or adjudication.

For mediation in the context of a pending litigation case, the Supreme Court (Mediation) Rules 2010 and the Intermediate Court (Mediation) Rules 2019 allow parties to have their dispute be referred to mediation before either a mediation judge or a mediation magistrate, respectively, who can ratify any settlement agreement reached and provide it with the same effect as a judgment of the competent court.

For non-judicial mediation however, there is no specific legal authority regulating this or the enforcement of agreements or decisions reached through it, which usually makes parties reluctant to resort to it. Although Mauritius has signed the Singapore Convention on Mediation, to date this has not been implemented in domestic law. Nevertheless, many parties continue to include mediation provisions in their contracts.

Judicial mediation under the Supreme Court (Mediation) Rules 2010 or the Intermediate Court (Mediation) Rules 2019 usually requires either the Chief Justice or the President of the Civil Division to refer a dispute to mediation, and in practice this may be done upon a joint motion by the parties themselves. In line with the applicable principles of mediation, the parties are not obliged to enter into a settlement, and can always withdraw from mediation proceedings.

As for the other ADR mechanisms, the lack of any legal framework governing them means that parties are free to organise their preferred ADR mechanism in the manner they wish, provided that it conforms with public policy principles.

There is no general obligation for parties to engage in ADR in Mauritius. Unless the parties have contractually agreed to resort to ADR which ousts the court’s jurisdiction (eg, arbitration), they have a right to access to courts established by law. Nonetheless, where such an agreement exists, a party may seek to raise a plea in limine objecting to the court’s jurisdiction, following which the court may stay proceedings or decline to assume jurisdiction over the matter, typically where the ADR mechanism has the effect of ousting the court’s jurisdiction. However, engaging in ADR does not interrupt or affect the running of time for the purposes of the applicable limitation period.

While parties may jointly request a court or arbitral tribunal to stay ongoing proceedings in favour of ADR, this remains subject to the discretion of the court or tribunal and does not result in an automatic stay.

The question of limitation does not arise in the same way in the context of judicial mediation, since this process can only be initiated once an action has already been lodged before the Supreme Court or Intermediate Court. As judicial mediation operates through the transfer of a matter from the relevant division of the court to the mediation division, the interruption to the limitation period brought about by the commencement of the action before the court applies equally to the mediation process.

Judicial mediation may take place at any point prior to judgment, upon referral of the matter to a mediation judge or mediation magistrate. Other ADR methods, such as institutional mediation or negotiation, typically occur prior to the commencement of more formal and binding dispute resolution proceedings, such as arbitration or litigation.

Engaging in ADR does not suspend the running of limitation periods in Mauritius, except in the case of an arbitration – in which case it is generally recognised that the initiation of arbitral proceedings amounts to a citation en justice (summons) capable of interrupting limitation periods.

Judicial mediation conducted under the Supreme Court (Mediation) Rules 2010 and the Intermediate Court (Mediation) Rules 2019 is expressly confidential in nature. Institutional mediation under the MARC Mediation Rules is similarly subject to confidentiality obligations.

It is generally presumed that other ADR methods would be equally treated as confidential, but such confidentiality would have to be expressly stipulated under the agreement for ADR and/or resulting outcome, in keeping with the consensual and private character of such processes.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the allocation of costs in ADR proceedings adjudication is typically addressed by the adjudicator/arbitrator in their decision, in the exercise of their discretion to allocate costs between the parties. This is the case for both domestic and international arbitrations. In the case of international arbitration, and in the absence of any agreement between the parties, when exercising its discretion the arbitral tribunal has regard to the principles that:

• costs should follow the event, except where it appears to the arbitral tribunal that this rule should not apply or not apply fully in the circumstances of the case; and
• the successful party should recover a reasonable amount reflecting the actual costs of the arbitration, and not only a nominal amount.

In more consensual processes such as negotiation and mediation, parties will generally either agree on costs allocation as part of any settlement or bear their own costs in the absence of such agreement. The judicial mediation framework also reflects this principle and notes that, while a settlement agreement may include provision for costs, this likely cannot be imposed by the court.

There are no other legislative provisions governing the allocation of costs in ADR proceedings in Mauritius.

The courts in Mauritius are generally supportive of ADR, recognising its capacity to resolve disputes efficiently and to alleviate pressure on the courts’ busy schedules. Judges and magistrates routinely encourage parties to explore negotiated settlements and afford them reasonable opportunity to pursue ADR where they consider it appropriate, including at various stages of the proceedings.

In the context of judicial mediation, the courts have set out rules on the framework and procedure, providing a degree of certainty to the parties. The rules would however benefit from further precision, in so far as there are certain practical difficulties to their application – for instance, in the case of a mediation settlement (akin to a judgment) on the subject matter of immovable property, the public authorities apply different (and higher) taxation rules than in judgments delivered by the court in usual litigation proceedings.

The framework regulating legal fees for law practitioners in Mauritius is governed by the respective codes of ethics applicable to barristers and attorneys.

In respect of attorneys, the relevant provisions require that fees charged be fair and reasonable, having regard to factors such as the time and labour involved, the complexity and novelty of the matter, the skill required, the fee customarily charged for similar services, and the experience and reputation of the attorney concerned.

The Code of Ethics applicable to barristers provides for a similar restriction, requiring that a barrister’s fees be fully disclosed to the client and that they be fair and reasonable.

Third-party funding arrangements are neither expressly provided for nor prohibited under Mauritian law. Subject to the requirements of public order, such arrangements are therefore likely to be considered permissible in Mauritius.

Contingency fee arrangements are permitted in Mauritius and are regulated by the professional ethical rules governing legal practitioners, which impose specific requirements on both barristers and attorneys.

For barristers, the applicable Code of Ethics prescribes a formal cap of 10% of the value of the result obtained for the client in the context of negotiations, award or a judgment.

For attorneys, the relevant ethical rules require that any contingency fee arrangement constitute a reasonable commission and be agreed in writing, which in practice is generally understood to amount to 10% of the value of the claim.

Litigation insurance appears to be permissible under Mauritian law and is available, though not offered by all insurance providers. For the most part, insurance coverage for litigation appears to fall under liability policies. Its use, however, remains limited in practice.

No specific information is available regarding insurance coverage for arbitration and ADR proceedings.

Costs are typically addressed following a final decision, with the general rule being that the losing party bears the winning party’s costs. However, the court retains discretion to make a different or no order as to costs in appropriate circumstances.

Recoverable costs generally cover legal adviser fees, court filing costs, witness attendance costs, and costs of ancillary pretrial applications. In practice, however, the fees of legal advisers and experts are capped at prescribed amounts under the Legal Fees and Costs Rules, which tend to be modest. As a result, a winning party is rarely able to fully recover the actual costs incurred in litigation.

However, this limitation does not apply in all contexts. In matters successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in international arbitration proceedings, the Legal Fees and Costs Rules do not apply. International arbitration costs are instead governed by the Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013, which allow a winning party to recover costs closer to its actual expenditure, on either a standard or indemnity basis.

Beyond ordinary costs, a party may also seek wasted costs and adjournment costs arising from the conduct of the opposing party or their legal advisers.

Wasted costs may be sought directly against the legal advisers of the other party as indemnity for improper, unreasonable or negligent acts or omissions that have caused additional costs to be incurred.

Adjournment costs may be sought by any party at any stage of civil proceedings to compensate for costs arising from undue delay caused by repeated postponements, provided the adverse party had applied for and been granted the relevant adjournment. Both wasted costs and adjournment costs are equally subject to the caps prescribed by the relevant court rules.

The general rule is that costs follow the event, meaning the costs of the successful party are borne by the losing party. However, this is subject to the requirement that the successful party makes an express demand for costs in its pleadings.

Notwithstanding the general rule, the court retains a wide discretion in awarding costs and may refuse to award costs. The court will typically exercise its discretion to refuse costs where the prevailing party has improperly conducted its case, where a defendant’s counterclaim has succeeded or where the parties have negotiated a settlement.

In determining whether to award adjournment costs, the court will consider, in the exercise of its discretion, whether the applicant has incurred additional expenses as a direct result of repeated postponements of the trial.

In determining whether to award wasted costs, the court will assess whether there has been an improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of a party’s legal representative, and whether it is just, in all the circumstances, to make such an order.

See 2.6 Interim Relief.

The Supreme Court may grant interim relief both in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction and pursuant to applications brought under the Code of Civil Procedure or the MCC. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, an applicant may seek provisional attachment orders pursuant to saisie-arrêt or saisie conservatoire procedures before the judge in chambers, provided that the applicant is able to establish a clear legal right and that the respondent does not have a valid defence to the claim.

Interim relief may also be sought under the equitable jurisdiction of the court, in the form of prohibitory injunctions, freezing orders and disclosure orders, among others. Applications for such relief are made before the judge in chambers. In determining whether to grant such relief, Mauritian courts often apply the same tests and criteria as those applied by English courts.

Interim relief is often sought before the Mauritian courts, particularly in commercial and land disputes, and is also available in the context of arbitration proceedings under the International Arbitration Act.

Mauritian courts may grant interim relief in support of international arbitration proceedings by virtue of the International Arbitration Act 2008, which confers upon the Supreme Court the same powers to issue interim measures as it would have in relation to court proceedings, subject to certain important limitations.

In exercising this power, the court is required to have regard to the specific features of international arbitration. As a general rule, the arbitral tribunal is the preferred forum for applications for interim relief, and the court will only intervene where the matter is urgent and the tribunal is unable to act effectively at the time of the application. Where urgency is established, the court may act on an ex parte basis; where it is not, the application must be made on notice to the other parties and to the arbitral tribunal, with the permission of the tribunal or the written agreement of the other parties. Any order granted by the court will cease to have effect upon a subsequent order being made by the arbitral tribunal.

There are no specific provisions governing the grant of interim relief in the case of domestic arbitrations, but in practice parties may seek the intervention of the Supreme Court (specifically a judge sitting in chambers) if the tribunal is not able to act and to protect the arbitration.

There is no specific framework governing the court’s powers to grant interim relief in support of non-arbitration ADR processes.

Applications for interim relief are generally made prior to the commencement of main proceedings in order to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final resolution of the dispute. Where injunctive relief is sought, however, the applicant is required to follow up the interim application with the initiation of main proceedings within a reasonable time and as directed by the judge.

A party is generally free to apply for security for costs subject to certain conditions being met. Mauritian law requires foreign plaintiffs initiating non-commercial actions who hold no immovable property in Mauritius to provide security for costs. Mauritian courts have also extended this principle to commercial matters on a case-by-case basis. Beyond these categories, the court retains a broader discretion to order security for costs regardless of the nationality of the plaintiff or the nature of the dispute – for example, where the plaintiff is known to be insolvent. Such an order for security for costs may be made irrespective of the nationality of the defendant.

In order for security for costs to be granted, the applying party must bring its application in limine – that is, before the defendant enters a plea on the merits, failing which the defendant is deemed to have waived its right to seek such an order.

As regards quantum, the court exercises its discretion by reference to the reasonableness of the security sought, having regard to factors such as the nature of the dispute, the evidence to be adduced and the expenses to be met.

The Supreme Court may, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, grant interim relief in the form of injunctions. The most common forms of interim injunctive relief sought before the court include prohibitory 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 chambers by way of praecipe supported by an affidavit detailing the remedy claimed and setting out the written and documentary evidence substantiating the grounds for the application. In determining whether to grant interim relief, the judge in chambers will typically apply the common law principles governing the form of relief sought.

The time within which the court acts on such applications 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 application being made. In highly exceptional circumstances where extreme urgency can be demonstrated, applications may be made and orders granted outside normal court hours, though this is rarely the case in a commercial context.

Save in very specific instances, Mauritian courts do not generally deliver summary judgments and typically 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 granted 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 possession 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 summary judgment available in common law jurisdictions.

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 designate one of their number to act as representative for the purposes of the proceedings, including attendance 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 environmental 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.

Class action mechanisms are not available under Mauritian law.

Class action mechanisms are not available under Mauritian law.

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 matter 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 proceedings; however, it is not unreasonable to assume that a material personal interest would be needed in the context of an arbitration as well.

The adoption of a formal class action mechanism or mass claim procedure in Mauritius remains unlikely in the near future. That said, the landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Eco-Sud and Others v Minister of Environment, Solid Waste and Climate Change and Another [2024] UKPC 19 appears to have clarified the circumstances in which specialist organisations and bodies may have representative standing in certain public law proceedings, such as judicial review, where such standing is not expressly excluded by statute. This decision may prove significant in shaping the extent to which collective interests can be advanced before the Mauritian courts.

Unlike most common law jurisdictions, Mauritian law does not provide for a formal discovery process. Disclosure of documents is instead conducted through the framework provided under the Supreme Court Rules 2000, where any party to an action before the Supreme Court may apply for particulars of the averments made in the opposing party’s pleadings and request inspection of documents which that party intends to rely upon at trial. This right is available to all parties equally, meaning that both the plaintiff and the defendant may seek particulars of each other’s pleadings and inspect the documents which the other intends to adduce in evidence.

The object of particulars is to enable the party asking for them to know what case it has to meet at the trial, to save unnecessary expense and to avoid allowing parties to be taken by surprise.

Mauritian law recognises both legal advice privilege and litigation privilege as part of the applicable common law principles in the jurisdiction. As Mauritian courts follow common law on this issue, the circumstances in which privilege may be waived would be equally determined in accordance with established common law principles.

Mauritian law recognises the right to withhold evidence on grounds of confidentiality. As a general rule, disclosure may be refused where the matter in question is protected by statute as confidential or classified as an official secret. That said, disclosure may still be compelled in circumstances expressly permitted by legislation or as may be authorised by a judge’s order upon the application of a party.

Witnesses in Mauritian civil proceedings are summoned to attend court to provide oral testimony on the facts as averred in the pleadings. Oral testimony is the primary mode of adducing evidence before the court, and witness statements are not generally accepted outside the context of applications made under the International Arbitration Act 2008 or as agreed between the parties in the context of domestic arbitration. Every witness heard in proceedings before a court is required to give evidence upon oath.

Each party calls its own witnesses in support of its case. Counsel for the opposing parties may cross-examine those witnesses, with cross-examination governed by the Courts Act 1945, which permits parties to question witnesses on prior inconsistent statements in order to challenge their credibility and reliability, provided the questions are relevant. Leading questions are permitted during cross-examination, subject to the requirement that they are not abusive or unfair. Re-examination is permitted following cross-examination, but is limited to matters arising from cross-examination and may not introduce new issues.

The process is adversarial rather than inquisitorial. While a judge may seek clarification from a witness, the court generally adopts a non-interventionist approach and is cautious about questioning witnesses directly.

Mauritian law does not provide for witness depositions in the conventional sense. However, Section 174 of the Courts Act provides a comparable mechanism where a party intends to call a witness who, on the day of trial, will not be in Mauritius or may not be fit to give evidence due to failing health. In such circumstances, the party may apply for a de bene esse hearing before a judge in chambers, following which all parties are notified and the hearing is conducted before the judge seized of the merits. The witness is examined and cross-examined at that hearing, with the deposition recorded in writing by the registrar. The deposition is subsequently filed with the court registry, carries the same evidentiary value as testimony given in open court, and forms part of the record of the main proceedings.

Article 324 of the Code of Civil Procedure also invests a party with the legal right to examine an adverse party on their personal answers. It is the usual practice for a motion to be made at the start of the proceedings for the examination of the adverse party if they are present in court. In order to ensure the attendance of the adverse party who may choose to be tactically absent on the day of the hearing, an application for examination is made ex parte in advance to the master by the party who intends to call them, setting out the grounds in support of the application.

Expert evidence may always be tendered by a party in support of its case. It is the responsibility of the parties to call and present their own expert witnesses on issues requiring specialist knowledge, with expert reports typically furnished to the opposing party prior to trial.

The court does not independently appoint experts, although it may indicate to the parties that expert evidence would be of assistance on a particular issue. It also retains full discretion to disregard or disallow expert evidence where it considers such evidence unnecessary.

Expert evidence is subject to established common law requirements on the admissibility of opinion evidence. The purpose of expert evidence is to assist the court, which must satisfy itself that the expert’s conclusions are well founded and may not simply accept them at face value.

In this regard, the court will assess whether the reasons given by the expert for reaching a particular conclusion are demonstrably valid, reliable and supported by an objective evaluation of the available material. In doing so, the court will examine the information relied upon by the expert, the process by which comparisons were drawn, the inferences made, and the reasons underpinning the expert’s conclusions.

An expert witness owes a duty of independence to the court. Their evidence should be, and should be seen to be, the product of objective and unbiased analysis within their area of expertise. An expert is equally under a duty to disclose any material which weighs against the propositions they advance, and not merely the evidence which supports their conclusions. The trial judge is not bound by expert evidence even where it is uncontradicted.

Foreign judgments that do not relate to the capacity of persons must be recognised and enforced by Mauritian courts prior to execution. Under Mauritian law, there are two distinct legal regimes for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, with the applicable regime depending on the nature and origin of the judgment in question.

The vast majority of foreign judgments are enforced in Mauritius through the exequatur procedure provided for under Article 546 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Exequatur applications are made before the Supreme Court by way of praecipe supported by affidavit evidence and an authenticated copy of the foreign judgment, along with a confirmation that the judgment is not subject to an appeal. The proceedings must be served on the respondent at least 14 days before the returnable date, or, in the case of an absent defendant, with leave of the court.

In addition to the exequatur process, Mauritian law has retained, as part of its Commonwealth inheritance, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1923, which provides a distinct registration mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of pecuniary judgments delivered by superior courts of the UK.

Under this process, the judgment creditor must, within 12 months of the date of the judgment, make an ex parte or summons application before the Supreme Court, supported by an affidavit of the facts and a duly authenticated copy of the judgment.

Upon receipt of the application, the Supreme Court may grant leave to register the judgment while fixing a time limit, typically between one and two months, within which the judgment debtor may apply to set aside the registration on the limited grounds provided for under the 1923 Act. If no such application is made, the foreign judgment is deemed executory in Mauritius.

It must however be noted that, where the judgment sought to be enforced is a pecuniary judgment from superior courts of the UK, the judgment creditor nevertheless retains the option of proceeding under either regime. In practice, the exequatur procedure is often the preferred route, as it imposes no time limit on the commencement of enforcement proceedings, making it more flexible than the 1923 Act.

Mauritian law provides for distinct enforcement regimes for domestic and foreign or international arbitral awards.

For foreign and international arbitral awards, the enforcement process is governed by the Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013 and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001.

The process begins through an application by way of arbitration motion before the Chief Justice, who verifies compliance of the application with the applicable court rules and the 2001 Act before issuing a provisional order. The provisional order is then served on the respondent, who has 14 days from service to apply for its setting-aside on one or more of the grounds set out in the 2001 Act, which reflects the grounds for resisting enforcement under the New York Convention, at which point the proceedings become adversarial.

If no such application is made, or if it is unsuccessful, the award may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment of the court. Adversarial enforcement proceedings are heard by a bench of three designated judges of the Supreme Court, and there exists a direct and automatic right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

For domestic arbitral awards, enforcement is initiated through the exequatur process by way of praecipe before the judge in chambers of the Supreme Court. The judge will determine whether the arbitral award is valid and satisfies the applicable conditions before granting exequatur and ordering the award to be made executory. Once enforcement is granted, the award creditor may initiate the various enforcement measures available, such as seizure, attachment or winding up, to give effect to the award.

The duration of enforcement proceedings will largely depend on whether an application is resisted or not. While unopposed applications may be granted speedily, contested enforcement applications for domestic or international arbitral awards may take between six and 12 months. Meanwhile, enforcement of a disputed foreign judgment can take between six and 18 months.

Mauritian law provides for distinct grounds upon which a party may resist the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, depending on the applicable enforcement regime and the instrument being enforced.

Foreign Judgments

In respect of foreign judgments enforced under the exequatur procedure, enforcement may be resisted on the following grounds:

• the judgment is no longer valid or capable of execution in the country where it was delivered;
• the judgment is contrary to public policy;
• the respondent was not regularly summoned to attend the foreign proceedings; or
• the foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

In recent jurisprudence, the Supreme Court appears to have included an additional ground to the above conditions by noting that an applicant must also establish a legitimate interest in obtaining exequatur in Mauritius, failing which the court may exercise its discretion to refuse enforcement.

For pecuniary judgments falling under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1923, the grounds for resisting registration are set out in Section 3(2) of the Act and include the following:

• the original court lacked jurisdiction;
• the judgment debtor was not duly served and did not appear;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• an appeal is pending or intended; or
• the underlying cause of action could not have been entertained by the Supreme Court on grounds of public policy.

Arbitral Awards

For foreign and international arbitral awards, the grounds for resisting recognition and enforcement are those set out in Article V of the New York Convention, which have been incorporated verbatim into domestic law by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001. Recognition and enforcement can only be refused if:

• the agreement is invalid;
• proper notice was not given;
• the award exceeds the arbitrator’s authority;
• the tribunal was not properly constituted;
• the award has not yet become binding or has been set aside; or
• the award is contrary to public policy or is not capable of being settled by arbitration.

For domestic arbitral awards, while Mauritian courts have comparatively broader authority to review such awards, in practice the court conducts only a summary examination to verify that:

• the arbitrator was properly appointed and the award constitutes a valid arbitral award;
• the award is duly signed;
• the arbitration agreement was valid and regular;
• the arbitrator acted within the scope of the reference and within the prescribed time limit;
• the arbitrator discharged the obligations imposed by law; and
• the award is not contrary to public policy.

Additionally, the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that the Ministère Public may oppose an application for recognition and enforcement of a domestic arbitral award on public policy grounds, which will automatically bar enforcement and oust the jurisdiction of the judge to order the award.

The use of AI in dispute resolution is not specifically regulated in Mauritius. Legal practitioners are nonetheless bound by their existing professional and ethical obligations, which would likely require them to verify that any content generated with the assistance of AI is accurate and does not amount to a misrepresentation or otherwise mislead the court or their client. The use of AI in dispute resolution would also typically be subject to respect for data privacy and confidentiality obligations.

No formal assessment has been conducted on the impact of AI in dispute resolution in Mauritius. That said, it is reasonable to assume that AI tools – in particular large language models (LLMs) – have already been informally adopted by legal practitioners to support their work. It is also noted that AI tools tailored to the Mauritian jurisdiction are being developed by law firms for internal use, and certain AI tools have also recently been developed and marketed by local legal practitioners for wider use, though the extent of their adoption by the profession at large and their impact remain unclear.

Mauritian courts have not yet formally adopted AI tools to improve efficiency in their operations or decision-making processes. While there is ongoing discussion around the broader digitalisation of court procedure, there have been no announcements or discussions on the deployment of AI in courts. The recent Digital Transformation 2025–2029 blueprint of the government of Mauritius specifies that the eJudiciary system will be extended to a higher number of courts to allow online consultations of cases, files and payments, but no mention of AI has been made at this stage.

That said, AI is expected to be gradually adopted in the Mauritian dispute resolution landscape more generally, starting with AI use by legal practitioners. The pace of adoption of AI by the courts will, however, likely depend on broader judicial reform initiatives, budgetary allocations and the development of an appropriate regulatory framework governing the use of AI in legal proceedings.