Business updates

Treaty Arbitration: Rawat v The Republic of Mauritius

Treaty Arbitration: Rawat vs. The Republic of Mauritius

27 Feb 2017

Applications for interim measures has been denied to both parties in the Rawat versus Republic of Mauritius case by a UNCITRAL tribunal composed of Lucy Reed, Jean Christophe Honlet and Vaughan Lowe QC in an order dated 11 January 2017. However, the tribunal has left the door open for both parties to reapply at a later stage.

This case is the first ever treaty claim against Mauritius. Dawood Rawat's claim is that Mauritius has violated the France-Mauritius BIT (Investment Promotion Treaty) by freezing and misappropriating his protected investment in the BAI Group. He is seeking compensation for these alleged treaty breaches in an amount exceeding US $ 1 billion. Mauritius denies any violation of its obligations under the France-Mauritius BIT and claims that the freeze of Rawat's assets are part of an ongoing, and legal, investigation of alleged Ponzi-like schemes orchestrated by him and/or his family members, involving money laundering and fraud at the level of MUR 1 billion. The case is seated in Brussels and administered by the Permanent Court of Hague. Both parties had applied for interim measures at this early stage of the proceedings, but the applications were denied to both parties by the tribunal.

The Global Arbitration Review (GAR) published an article on the tribunal's order on 13 January 2017 reporting that the tribunal 'refused to order Mauritius to advance the full costs of the claim or unfreeze the claimant's bank accounts and real estate to enable him to fund it himself'. The GAR reported moreover that the tribunal also declined to enjoin Mauritius from aggravating the dispute through media campaigns and retaliatory measures against the claimant's family - but reminded both parties of their legal requirement to avoid action that could prejudice the rights of the other party. On the other hand, Mauritius's application in request of Euros 3 million in security for costs was denied too. But the tribunal however stated that both parties have leave to re-apply for these interim measures at a later stage.