Summary of recent changes in arbitration in Mauritius

Published: 27 Mar 2019
Type: Insight

The London Court of International Arbitration-Mauritius International Arbitration Centre (LCIA-MIAC) announced in July 2018 that the joint venture, which the LCIA entered into with the Mauritian Government in 2011, had been terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties to the joint venture – a termination that became effective on 27 July 2018.


However, both the LCIA and the Mauritian Government remain firmly committed to promoting international arbitration both in and in relation to Africa. Over and above this mutual commitment, the Mauritian Government will pursue its ambition of maintaining Mauritius as a focal point for international arbitration in Africa as it has been for the past seven years.

As from 28 July 2018, the MIAC emerged as a fully operational and independent arbitration centre equipped with state-of-the art technology in order to administer international arbitrations and mediations using MIAC Rules.

The MIAC Rules are based on the UNCITRAL Rules as well as on the Mauritian International Arbitration Act 2008 (IAA). The avowed aim of the Mauritian Government is to provide the international community with an international arbitral seat for Africa and beyond by bringing ‘the highest level of dispute resolution services to the international community, with a particular focus on disputes in and with relation to Africa’.

It is understood that the MIAC will be sustained by a 3-tier structure namely, the Government of Mauritius, an Advisory Board headed by Professor Emmanuel Gaillard and, a Secretariat which will stand advised by the Advisory Board. The MIAC will also derive support from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) which has established presence in Mauritius. Thus, the MIAC Rules will refer matters dealing with arbitral appointments and challenges to the Secretary-General of the PCA in line with the IAA. As to the legal framework within which the MIAC will operate, it will be the IAA. As to the legal framework within which the MIAC will operate, it will be the International Arbitration Act. On 4 September 2018, the MIAC announced the appointment of two its Co-Registrars.

The discontinuance of the operations of the LCIA-MIAC in the Mauritian jurisdiction has a direct bearing on the Mauritian global business sector. In particular, this affects Mauritian companies licensed as Category 1 Global Business Licence (GBL1) companies. Indeed, since January 2015, one of the criteria that is looked at by the Financial Services Commission, as regulator of the Mauritian global business, to ascertain whether a GBL1 is administered and managed in Mauritius, is the inclusion of an arbitral clause in the constitution of these Mauritian companies to the effect that disputes arising out of the constitution of GBL1 companies shall be referred to arbitration under the IAA (section 5 IAA) (i.e. international arbitration).

In order to deal with arbitrations and mediations driven under the LCIA-MIAC, the LCIA will continue to administer such arbitrations and mediations that have already been concluded or are inadvertently concluded between now and 31 August 2018. However, it is the MIAC that will administer arbitrations and mediations that arise from agreements that inadvertently reference the LCIA-MIAC and that are concluded after 31 August 2018.

Undoubtedly, the emergence of the MIAC as an independent arbitration centre is an ambitious project and clearly its composition demonstrates its determination to position itself as a seriousness international arbitration hub within the African region.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Financial-Services
8 Oct 2025

Enforcing Integrity: The UK’s Legal Arsenal Against Market Abuse

The legal concept of market abuse and the twin concept of upholding market integrity are not new as these were prevalent since the 17th century ¹. As a matter of fact, there is a belief that insider dealing was the root cause of demise of the South Sea Company in the 18th century.

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
9 Sep 2025

Dual Remedies Afforded against the Granting of Injunctions

Actis Consumer Grooming Products Ltd v Super-Max Mauritius [2025 SCJ 388]

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
27 Aug 2025

The Mauritian National Budget 2025/2026 - From abyss to prosperity: Rebuilding the bridge to future

On 05 June 2025, Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK, FRCP, Prime Minister of Mauritius, in his capacity as Minister of Finance (Minister of Finance) tabled the National Budget for the fiscal year 2025-2026 under the theme “From Abyss to Prosperity: Rebuilding the Bridge to the Future”.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
18 Aug 2025

Mauritius as an Ideal Seat for Arbitration

In one of its recent determinations, the Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirmed a line of decisions which confirmed its support to arbitration, whether international or domestic. These determinations reflect its understanding of the needs of business community, characterised by a marked choice to resolve disputes through a private mechanism to allow existing business relationships to thrive.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
25 Jul 2025

Insider Dealing: A Review of the Treatment in Mauritius, EU and US Federal law

A review of the treatment in Mauritius, the United States and the European Union of the offence of insider trading confirms the contrasting approaches which these jurisdictions have adopted on the issue even though all three jurisdictions share two fundamental concerns namely, (i) the prohibition on an insider to take an unfair advantage by reason of information which he has obtained to the detriment of third parties who are unaware of such information and, (ii) the protection of the integrity of financial markets and investor confidence ¹.

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
20 Jun 2025

Professional emails are personal data

Case Commentary – France, Cour de cassation, 18 June 2025, 23-19.022 Professional emails are personal data.

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
11 Jun 2025

Are our Courts tilting towards procedural flexibility?

Case Commentary: R.K.G FRUITS CO LTD v MAERSK (MAURITIUS) LIMITED 2025 SCJ 220. In a significant decision reaffirming the principle that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice, the Court of Civil Appeal allowed an appeal overturning an interlocutory judgment of the Bankruptcy Division that had dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand on the basis of a contested board resolution.

Appleby-Website-Technology-and-Innovation
19 Mar 2025

Is Cryptocurrency security - the Mauritian and USA perspectives?

As any of the emerging technologies, cryptocurrency has been disruptive to the market and has challenged regulators globally. Unsurprisingly, it has been commented that “a little more than a decade ago, cryptocurrencies were essentially an academic concept. The idea seemed far-fetched to most people. But that all changed in 2009 with the creation of Bitcoin …/… [today] the world’s cryptocurrency market is worth more than USD 3 trillion …/… there’s no question that crypto is here to stay, and it will undoubtedly continue to disrupt countless industries ”.

IWD Grid Capture
8 Mar 2025

International Women’s Day 2025 roundtable: Rights. Equality. Empowerment.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
28 Jan 2025

Case Commentary: Mulliez H.S.B v Telecel Group SA & Anor 2025 SCJ 31

On 22 January 2025, the full bench of the Court of Civil Appeal in the matter of Mulliez H.S.B v Telecel Group SA & Anor 2025 SCJ 31 decided on the scope of Section 6 of the Court of Civil Appeal Act 1963, also common referred as the “similar purpose application” section. Unsurprisingly, the Court has pathed the way for judicial activism holding that the: “Court would therefore readily intervene, in the absence of any appropriate or adequate legal remedy, where the immediate and urgent intervention of the Court is warranted for the due administration of justice through the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction.”