Located at the crossroads of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, Mauritius is an emerging seat of international arbitration, offering modern legislation, a pro-arbitration judiciary, global enforceability of awards and access to world-class arbitration institutions.
This note explores five pillars of its arbitration landscape: its modern legal framework (Section 1), the operation of two Mauritius-based, international arbitration institutions (Section 2), its strong judicial support, including recent pro-arbitration case law (Section 3), its emergence as a competitive and credible arbitration seat (Section 4), as well as the investment arbitration environment (Section 5). The conclusion highlights Mauritius’ growing strategic appeal for resolving cross-border disputes via arbitration (Section 6).
1. Legal Framework
The legal framework for international arbitration in Mauritius is governed by the following pieces of legislation:
- International Arbitration Act No. 37 of 2008, as amended by the International Arbitration (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 (the “2013 Amendment Act”), the cornerstone statute, which is based on the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law, with targeted enhancements (the consolidated “Arbitration Act”).
- Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013, which sets out procedural rules for handling arbitration-related claims before the Supreme Court of Mauritius.
- The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act No. 8 of 2001 (as amended by the 2013 Amendment Act above), implementing the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Mauritius.
The Travaux Préparatoires of the International Arbitration Act No. 37 of 2008 and the Explanatory Notes to the International Arbitration (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 are also available from the Attorney General’s website, offering further insight into the background and intent of these laws.
Independent Framework from Domestic Arbitrations
The Mauritius Code of Civil Procedure (Code de Procédure Civile), which governs evidence and court procedures in domestic cases, does not apply to international arbitrations. This is stated in Section 2C of the 2013 Amendment Act, entitled “Disconnection of International Arbitration from Domestic Arbitration and Regime”.
This clear separation of domestic and international arbitration laws ensures that international arbitrations are governed by modern, globally aligned standards, free from outdated or rigid domestic procedures, thereby enhancing legal certainty, efficiency and Mauritius’ attractiveness as an international arbitration hub.
Mauritius Arbitration Act
International arbitrations seated in Mauritius are governed by the International Arbitration Act No. 37 of 2008, as amended by the International Arbitration (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 mentioned above.
The Arbitration Act is based on the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law, which is widely acknowledged as representing the best standards in the field worldwide. The Arbitration Act also introduces certain modifications designed to strengthen the arbitral framework, which are discussed below.
Structure of the Arbitration Act
The Arbitration Act is divided into seven Parts, encompassing 45 Sections and three Schedules:
- Part I: Preliminary (Sections 1–2D)
- Part IA: Scope of Application (Sections 3–3E)
- Part II: Initiation of Proceedings (Sections 4–10)
- Part III: The Arbitral Tribunal (Sections 11–20)
- Part IV: Interim Measures (Sections 21–23)
- Part V: Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings (Sections 24–31)
- Part VI: The Award (Sections 32–40)
- Part VII: Miscellaneous (Sections 41–45)
- First Schedule: Optional Supplementary Provisions for International Arbitrations
- Second Schedule: Model Arbitration Provisions for Global Business Licence (GBL) Companies
- Third Schedule: Table of Corresponding Provisions between the Act and the UNCITRAL Amended Model Law
Key Differences from the Model Law
While the Arbitration Act broadly follows the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law, it introduces several notable changes:
- Representation: Parties may be represented by any individual, including foreign or non-lawyer representatives (Section 31).
- Specialist Judges: Only designated Supreme Court judges with arbitration expertise may hear arbitration-related matters (Sections 42–43).
- Automatic Court Transfer: Court proceedings involving arbitrable disputes are automatically transferred to the Supreme Court for referral to arbitration, without requiring an application by the parties (Section 5).
- Confidentiality: Confidentiality in arbitration-related court proceedings is not automatic but can be agreed by the parties or ordered by the court (Section 42(1B)).
- Enhanced Interim Measures: Broader powers for interim relief are provided, including urgent ex parte applications (Sections 21–23).
- Appeal on Points of Law: Appeals to the Supreme Court are permitted on questions of Mauritian law with leave (First Schedule).
- Consumer Arbitration Safeguards: Consumer arbitration clauses are only enforceable if confirmed in writing after the dispute arises (Section 8).
These modifications reflect a conscious policy decision to position Mauritius as a sophisticated and reliable seat of arbitration.
Substantive Mauritius Law
Mauritius operates under a hybrid legal system that combines French civil law (applicable to substantive matters such as contracts) with British common law traditions (relevant to procedure, evidence and judicial precedent). This dual heritage contributes to a well-balanced and internationally accessible legal environment.
2. Institutional Arbitration in Mauritius
Mauritius hosts two primary arbitration centres: (1.) the Mauritius International Arbitration Centre (“MIAC”) and (2.) the Mediation and Arbitration Center Mauritius (“MARC”), both based in Port Louis. Their key features are discussed in turn below.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) also maintains a permanent office in Mauritius, further enhancing its global standing.
Mauritius International Arbitration Centre (MIAC)
Initially established in 2011 as part of a joint venture with the London Court of International Arbitration and independent since 2018, the MIAC administers arbitrations under its own MIAC Arbitration Rules 2018 (also available in French), which are based on the widely respected UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010, offering parties a balanced combination of procedural predictability and flexibility.
Key features of the MIAC include:
- The MIAC administers proceedings under other sets of rules, such as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
- The Secretary-General of the PCA serves as the appointing authority of arbitrators under the MIAC Arbitration Rules 2018 (Article 6.1).
- A waiver of the MIAC fees will be considered on request for disputes up to USD 500,000 (MIAC Schedule of Fees November 2023).
- In the absence of party agreement on the place of arbitration, the default seat for MIAC arbitrations is Mauritius (Article 18.1).
Mediation and Arbitration Center Mauritius (MARC)
The MARC was established in 1996 as an initiative of the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry to provide the business community with a faster, more flexible and private way to settle disputes through arbitration and mediation, as an alternative to court litigation.
Since 2020, MARC has become an independent entity registered as a company limited by shares under the name of “The Mediation and Arbitration Center (Mauritius) Ltd”.
The MARC has its own MARC Arbitration Rules 2018, which includes its fees in its Appendices.
According to its own statistics, from 2014 to 2024, the MARC administered 37 arbitration cases, all seated in Mauritius, in a variety of disputes, including construction, real estate, and corporate, the majority of them governed by Mauritian law. While the number of cases is relatively low compared to more established arbitral institutions globally (for instance, as noted in another Aceris note, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) handled 841 new cases in 2024 alone, and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) received 362 new referrals), it reflects Mauritius’ emerging role as an international arbitration hub.
3. Mauritius Judicial Support for Arbitration
Mauritian courts have adopted a pro-arbitration and restrained approach, intervening only where explicitly permitted under the Arbitration Act.
Key Judicial Powers
- Interim Relief: The Supreme Court may issue interim measures in support of arbitration, whether seated in Mauritius or abroad (Arbitration Act, Section 23).
- Tribunal Formation: Courts may intervene in the appointment, challenge, or replacement of arbitrators when party-agreed mechanisms fail (Arbitration Act, Sections 13–16).
- Award-Related Proceedings: Local courts handle the enforcement and annulment of awards (Arbitration Act, Sections 39–40). Notably, awards may be annulled not only for the standard Model Law grounds but also for fraud, corruption, or serious breaches of natural justice (Arbitration Act, Section 39(2)(b)(iii) and (iv)). A three-month time limit applies to setting aside proceedings from the date the award is received (Section 39(4)).
Recent Arbitration-Related Mauritius Case Law
The cases analysed below illustrate that Mauritius has developed a robust, pro-arbitration jurisprudence that supports the enforcement of arbitral awards, respects arbitral autonomy, and applies international standards under the New York Convention.
National Bank Of Canada v. Ibl Ltd & Ors [2022 SCJ 416] (Courts Must Respect Arbitration as the Agreed Dispute Resolution Forum): In this case, the Supreme Court of Mauritius dealt with the fallout of an interim application filed by the claimant in support of arbitration proceedings initiated under the ICC Rules in London. The applicant had sought injunctive relief in Mauritius to suspend termination notices issued under a shareholders’ agreement, but despite initiating arbitration, it continued pursuing the court application in parallel. The Court criticised this approach as riding two horses at the same time, noting that the applicant failed to justify why interim relief was not sought before the arbitral tribunal instead. Ultimately, the Court allowed the applicant to withdraw its application but awarded costs to the respondents, emphasising the importance of procedural discipline and the proper use of arbitration mechanisms where available.
Jitsing S & Anor v. Consortium D’etudes Et De Realisations Immobilieres Ltee & Ors [2021 SCJ 228] (Limited Judicial Review at the Enforcement (Exequatur) Stage): the Supreme Court of Mauritius upheld the enforcement (exequatur) of an arbitral award made under MARC, rejecting the appellants’ claim that they were not bound by the shareholders’ agreement or the arbitration clause, and confirming that a judge’s role at the exequatur stage is limited to a summary review of legality and public order, not a reconsideration of the merits.
Flashbird Ltd v. Compagnie De Securite Privee Et Industrielle Sarl [2021] UKPC 32 (Limited Set Aside Grounds; Hybrid Arbitration Clauses): the UK Privy Council dismissed an appeal to set aside a MARC arbitral award. The central issue was whether the arbitration clause required the dispute to be conducted under the ICC Rules, which might have led to the appointment of a three-member tribunal, whereas the arbitration was conducted under MARC Rules with a sole arbitrator. The appellant argued this constituted a breach of the parties’ agreed procedure. However, the Privy Council held that even if a hybrid clause was intended, the appellant failed to prove that the ICC would have appointed three arbitrators or that this deviation caused material prejudice (paras. 25–29). The court also cautioned against hybrid arbitration clauses, noting that combining different institutions and rules creates procedural uncertainty and should be interpreted restrictively unless clearly expressed (paras 30–31).
Betamax Ltd v. State Trading Corporation [2021] UKPC 14] (Public Policy as a Narrow Ground for Refusing Enforcement): in this case, the Privy Council reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius and upheld the enforcement of a Singapore-seated arbitral award in favour of Betamax. The central issue was whether the award, which arose from a government shipping contract, violated Mauritian public policy due to alleged illegality. The Privy Council held that enforcing an international arbitral award under the New York Convention could only be refused on narrow grounds, and the threshold for proving a breach of international public policy was high. It found no evidence that the contract or the award violated such policy, emphasising that errors of law by the arbitral tribunal were not grounds for refusing enforcement. The judgment strongly affirmed the finality of international arbitration and Mauritius’ obligations under the New York Convention.
De Nassau Gestion Ltee v. L.b.r.g.m. Legall & Ors [2020 SCJ 72] (Directors May Be Personally Liable Post-Award if There is Clear Misconduct): the case dealt with the plaintiff’s attempt to enforce an arbitral award of over Rs 4.5 million, originally issued against a company, by holding its former directors personally liable. The court confirmed that arbitral awards only bind the parties to the arbitration and emphasised that extending liability to non-parties requires clear proof of wrongdoing. It dismissed the claims against two former directors who had resigned before the company’s persistent defaults, finding no evidence of ongoing involvement, misconduct, or business diversion. However, the court found that the sole remaining director allowed the insolvent company to occupy the premises rent-free for nearly a year despite being fully aware of its financial incapacity, thus breaching his fiduciary duties. As a result, he was held personally liable for the full amount of the award, since his actions caused the company’s liability and made post-award recovery through the company impossible.
Societe Koenig Freres v. Les Salines Irs Co Ltd & Anors [2009 SCJ 104] (Separability; Arbitration Clauses Remain Valid Even if the Main Contract Is Terminated): the applicant sought an injunction to stop arbitration proceedings, arguing that the termination of the main agreement rendered the arbitration clause void. The Supreme Court of Mauritius rejected this argument and upheld the principle of separability, which holds that an arbitration clause remains valid and enforceable even if the main contract is terminated. The Court emphasised that the clause operates as an autonomous agreement, and any issues about the arbitrator’s jurisdiction should be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself. Drawing on both Mauritian and international case law, the judgment confirmed that Mauritian law recognises the doctrine of “kompetenz-kompetenz”, allowing arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction, and reaffirmed that arbitration should not be easily derailed by disputes over the underlying contract’s validity.
Laporte M. v. Antolinos M. R. [2018 SCJ 410]: (Dissatisfaction with the Arbitration Is Not A Ground to Bypass Arbitration): the Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed a commercial suit in which the plaintiff attempted to bypass an agreed arbitration clause on the grounds that he had lost faith in the process, alleging improper conduct by the defendant’s legal representatives and a breakdown in trust over arbitrator appointment. The parties had clearly agreed to arbitration. The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of arbitration agreements and held that any difficulty in implementing the appointment process must be resolved by the Judge in Chambers under Article 1005 of the Code de Procédure Civile, not through court proceedings. The plaintiff’s subjective loss of confidence in the process was not sufficient to trigger court jurisdiction, and the suit was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited and others [2014 SCJ 100] (Mauritian Courts Will Enforce Foreign Awards Absent Clear Violations): in this case, the Supreme Court of Mauritius granted enforcement of two London-seated LCIA arbitral awards in favour of Cruz City, arising from a failed real estate joint venture in Mumbai. The awards required the respondents to pay over USD 298 million and legal costs to Cruz City. The respondents challenged enforcement based on jurisdictional overreach, violation of public policy and constitutional grounds. The Court rejected all objections, holding that enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention did not undermine Mauritian constitutional principles or public policy, particularly in international arbitration. It reaffirmed the limited role of enforcement courts and emphasised respect for the supervisory court’s rulings (English High Court), the autonomy of arbitration agreements and the finality of awards.
4. Mauritius as a Safe Seat of Arbitration
Mauritius has been recognised by Delos Dispute Resolution (a Paris-based international arbitration institution), as a safe and effective seat of arbitration, alongside major hubs like London, Paris, and Geneva, based on rigorous criteria.
In particular, Mauritius has received “green” ratings across all key criteria, including its legal framework, adherence to international treaties, limited court intervention, arbitrator immunity from civil liability, judiciary, legal expertise, rights of representation, accessibility and safety, ethics and arbitration tech friendliness (Delos Dispute Resolution, Guide to Arbitration Places (GAP) Traffic Lights For All Jurisdictions, January 2025):
Despite its geographic isolation compared to traditional arbitration hubs, Mauritius benefits from strong digital infrastructure, time-zone compatibility with Africa and Asia, and a bilingual legal culture (English and French).
5. Investment Arbitration in Mauritius
Mauritius is a party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), thereby agreeing to allow certain international investment disputes between itself and foreign investors to be resolved under the rules and procedures of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Mauritius has successfully defended itself in at least one known investor-State arbitration, Thomas Gosling and others v. Republic of Mauritius (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/32), resulting in a 2020 award in favour of Mauritius. In this case, the tribunal dismissed claims of UK property investors that Mauritius had allegedly breached its obligations under the 1986 UK-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) by prohibiting a luxury development on a UNESCO World Heritage Site at Le Morne.
As of August 2025, there are also at least two ICSID cases involving Mauritian entities, i.e.: (1.) Suffolk (Mauritius) Limited, Mansfield (Mauritius) Limited and Silver Point Mauritius v. Portuguese Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/22/28, which is pending, and (2.) LTME Mauritius Limited and Madamobil Holdings Mauritius Limited v. Republic of Madagascar (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/28), which was concluded in a 2023 award in favour of Madagascar.
6. Conclusion: A Legally Mature Seat with Strategic Appeal
While not yet a global arbitration powerhouse, Mauritius presents a compelling choice for international arbitration, especially for disputes involving African, Asian or cross-regional interests. With a robust UNCITRAL-based legal regime, reduced court intervention and world-class institutional support, Mauritius is poised to become a leading arbitration seat.