Bissonauth (Appellant) v Sugar Insurance Fund Board (Respondent) (Mauritius)
Case ID: JCPC 2017/0040
Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of Mauritius
Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius erred in upholding an injunction prohibiting the appellant from seizing the respondent’s property, where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had previously found that the appellant was entitled to damages for his unjustified dismissal by the respondent.
The appellant is a former employee of the respondent. He was summarily dismissed in 1997. He brought a claim for damages for unjustified dismissal under section 32 of the Labour Act 1975 which was dismissed by the Industrial Court of Mauritius. His appeal was allowed in part by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, however that court upheld the lower court’s finding that his dismissal was justified under the 1975 Act. The appellant appealed successfully to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who found his dismissal unjustified under the Act, because the respondent had not given him an opportunity to make representations prior to dismissal. Following the Privy Council judgment, the appellant sought to enforce that judgment in the Mauritius courts. In October and November 2012 the Industrial Court issued a warrant for the seizure of the goods and chattels of the respondent. This was met, however, with a successful application by the respondent for an interlocutory order, which prevented the appellant from seizing any of the respondent’s property. The appellant appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Supreme Court of Mauritius. He now appeals to the Privy Council against that decision.
Sugar Insurance Fund Board
Lord Reed, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin
Hearing start date
22 Nov 2018
Hearing finish date
22 Nov 2018
|22 Nov 2018||Morning session|