The Supreme Court Of Mauritius Affirms Stand-Alone Procedural Regime For International Arbitration Matters

• Published date: 13 November 2023
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution
• Law Firm: Orison Legal
• Author: Mr Bilshan Nursimulu

In a judgment delivered on 06 November 2023 (OGD Services Holdings Ltd v Norscot Rig Management Pvt Limited (Mauritius)¹, the Supreme Court of Mauritius affirmed, among other principles, that the enforcement of arbitration awards under the New York Convention and the International Arbitration Act 2008 is subject to a stand-alone procedural regime. The Court held that an enforcement claim is not required to comply with the procedural rules that apply in other civil matters, such as the procedural requirements under the Deposit of Powers of Attorney Act. The judgment was given in favour of the award creditor, represented by Orison Legal (Bilshan Nursimulu, Rajesh Bucktowonsing SA and Keseven Nair).

The case concerned a London-seated arbitration between two offshore companies incorporated in Mauritius. The arbitration was administered by the ICC. The arbitral tribunal determined the dispute in favour of Norscot Rig Management Pvt Limited ("Norscot"). On the issue of costs, the arbitral tribunal found that the conduct of the losing party ("OGD") in the arbitration was unreasonable and out of norm so as to justify an award of legal costs assessed on an indemnity basis, including the costs that Norscot had to pay to a third-party litigation funder. OGD unsuccessfully challenged that award before the English High Court². Subsequently, it opposed the recognition and enforcement of the final award in Mauritius, which the Supreme Court rejected in the judgment under consideration.

The stand-alone procedural regime for international arbitration matters

Norscot's enforcement claim was supported by a witness statement signed by one of its directors. That director stated therein that he was duly authorised by the Board of directors of Norscot to give evidence on its behalf and to that effect, he annexed a copy of the Board resolution in which the authorisation was given. OGD argued that under Mauritius law, to the extent that the Board resolution was made outside of Mauritius, it had to be deposited before a public notary and filed in the registry of the Supreme Court before Norscot could rely on it. Norscot did not consider that this procedure was applicable in an enforcement matter but adopted it nevertheless out of an abundance of caution. However, OGD argued that Norscot failed to adduce evidence to establish that the person who deposited the Board resolution on behalf of Norscot was properly mandated to do so and that the Board resolution was passed in conformity...