In a judgment delivered on 21 March 2023[1], the Supreme Court of Mauritius considered whether an attorney (solicitor), in his personal name and capacity, had standing to apply for a judicial review of the rules...
MauritiusLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
In a judgment delivered on 21 March 20231, the
Supreme Court of Mauritius considered whether an attorney
(solicitor), in his personal name and capacity, had standing to
apply for a judicial review of the rules issued by the Chief
Justice in relation to court fees. In short, the attorney claimed
that the increase in court fees would result in the denial or
fettering of access to justice to the average citizen or those of
low income who do not generally qualify for legal aid. It was
argued on behalf of the Chief Justice, the State and the
Attorney-General that the application was in the nature of public
interest litigation ("PIL"), which the Court cannot
entertain. The Court agreed that the attorney lacked standing.
However, the Court did not issue a hard no to PIL.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.
View source
