The Respondent Charterers, a trading arm of the Government of Mauritius, repudiated a 15-year COA. The arbitrator dismissed Charterer’s argument that the COA was unlawful, due to lack of required approval by the Central Procurement Board, and awarded some USD115m. to the Appellant owner. The Supreme Court of Mauritius (SCM) held that the COA, being unapproved, was in contravention of public procurement legislation, and set the award aside as it conflicted with public policy. The Privy Council, on appeal, held that, whilst the SCM was empowered to determine whether an award conflicted with public policy, this power did not permit it to review the legality of the COA, which turned on statutory interpretation, and gave rise to no issues of public policy. The appeal was allowed, and the award final and enforceable.

“Tepe obtained arbitration awards against (Turkish-State owned) Bota§ for amounts over USD100m in respect of work on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. By way of enforcement, Tepe obtained interim orders from the Jersey Courts over shares held by Bota§ in two Jersey subsidiaries. The Privy Council heard Bota§' appeal on the grounds of State Immunity and concluded that the shares were neither "property" of the Turkish State nor sufficiently controlled by the State as to qualify for immunity under the relevant statutes.”

“By a WI dated 4 August 1999 MSC contracted with Sotramon for the carriage of a crane from Port Louis to Felixtowe. The bill contained an English law/ High Court in London jurisdiction clause and a limitation on MSC's liability. On outturn, part of the crane was said to be missing therefore in 2000 Sotramon commenced proceedings in Mauritius, based on tort, claiming damages for the missing part and some additional liabilities incurred. Those proceedings underwent various challenges, MSC contending that the claim should have been pursued in contract not tort, and in London, with the Mauritian court of appeal agreeing in 2013. The matter eventually came before the UK Privy Council who upheld the first instance judgment in Mauritius, namely that Sotramon was at liberty to pursue its tortious claim there. Presumably the matter will now proceed there, nearly 20 years after events.”