Anderson Ross Consulting Ltd (Appellant) v Financial Services Commission and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)
Case ID: JCPC 2018/0050
Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of Mauritius
There are three issues in this appeal:
- Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius was right in dismissing the application for judicial review without a hearing of the merits.
- Whether the Supreme Court of Mauritius was right in dismissing the application for judicial review without the Appellant being afforded the opportunity to be legally represented by new Counsel.
- Whether the decisions and decision-making processes of the Respondents were legal and correct.
The Appellant was the holder of a management licence issued by the First Respondent under section 77 of the Financial Services Act 2007 ("the Act"). The First Respondent is a statutory body which exists under the Act and is the regulator of non-banking financial services in Mauritius.
At the relevant time, the Appellant was offering its services to about 175 companies which were all licenced by the First Respondent. By a letter dated 3 December 2010, the licence of the Appellant was suspended with immediate effect on the ground that the First Respondent had reason to believe that the Appellant was carrying on its business in a manner that was prejudicial to the integrity of the financial services industry which might affect the good repute of Mauritius as a centre for financial services.
The Appellant was given a delay of 7 days to make representations to the First Respondent. However, on 17 December 2010 the First Respondent informed the Appellant that its licence was suspended and that it was referring the matter to its Enforcement Committee. The Enforcement Committee invited the Appellant to make representations, which the Appellant made by letter. By way of letter dated 21 February 2011, the Enforcement Committee informed the Appellant of its decision to revoke its management licence. The Appellant gave notice to the First Respondent of its intention to appeal against the decision of the Enforcement Committee before the Second Respondent. The notice however was sent to the First Respondent and not to the Second Respondent, as there was no information publicly available for the Second Respondent. There was no evidence that the Second Respondent had in fact been set-up at the time the licence of the Appellant was revoked.
The deadline date for appeal to the Second Respondent was 14 March 2011. The Appellant sought details of the Second Respondent. On 10 March 2011, the First Respondent informed the Appellant, by way of letter dated 9 March 2011, that it had forwarded the Appellant’s notice of appeal to the secretary of the Second Respondent. A letter received from the Second Respondent was silent as to the contact details for the Second Respondent.
Following a hearing held by the Second Respondent the appeal of the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that there was no valid application for review before the Second Respondent.
The Appellant made an application before the Supreme Court of Mauritius for judicial review. The Appellant argues that the Court ordered that its application be set aside with costs without hearing the case on the motion to amend the statement of case and/or the merits, and without affording the Appellant the opportunity to represent itself and/or to be legally represented by new legal advisers and/or to address the Court. This is disputed by the Respondents.
Anderson Ross Consulting Ltd
- Financial Services Commission
- Financial Services Review Panel
Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath,Lady Black, Lord Kitchin, TBC
Hearing start date
05 Nov 2019
Hearing finish date
05 Nov 2019