Mark Buckley examines the setting aside of international arbitration awards for reasons of public policy
- In an important judgment, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has held that the Supreme Court of Mauritius was not entitled to review the decision of an arbitrator as to the legality of a contract under Mauritian public procurement laws.
As far back as 1824, Burrough J said: ‘Public policy is a very unruly horse, and when you get astride, you never know where it will carry you,’ in his judgment in Richardson v Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229, [1824-34] All ER Rep 258. Nearly 200 years later, in an important judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 14 June 2021 in Betamax Ltd v State Trading Corp (Mauritius) [2021] UKPC 14, [2021] All ER (D) 77 (Jun), the horse has been well and truly tamed.
The case is important because it concerns the extent to which a court can set aside or refuse to enforce
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
