Sakoor Dawood Patel and others v Anandsing Beenessreesingh and another (Mauritius)

In Mauritian personal-injury claims, damages should be separately assessed under material and moral heads, including past expenditure, future care and treatment, earnings and, where appropriate, losses suffered by close relatives. Expenditure may be proved by credible oral evidence of liability; receipts are not a legal prerequisite, although missing documents may affect its weight. Appellate courts must exercise particular restraint when reviewing trial findings based on witness evidence, especially where criticism was not put to the witness. Future care requires a life-expectancy and multiplier calculation allowing for accelerated receipt, inflation, tax and depletion of capital. Moral damages should reflect prior awards, factual differences and inflation. Under section 197A of the Courts Act, interest is discretionary and capped at 15%, with Article 1153 governing post-judgment interest.

A young woman suffered catastrophic brain and bodily injuries as a passenger in a road collision in Mauritius. Her provisional administrator and family claimed material and moral damages against the vehicle owner and liability insurer. The trial judge awarded Rs. 23,195,727 and refused interest. The Court of Appeal reduced the damages to Rs. 9,850,000 and affirmed the refusal of interest. The appeal concerned the proof and quantification of past and future material damage, moral damages for the injured woman and her family, and interest under section 197A of the Courts Act. The central issue was whether the appellate court was entitled to substitute its assessments and refuse interest.

Lord Sumption delivered the single judgment of the Board. The appeal was allowed.

1. Past material damage. There was no rule in Mauritius requiring receipts or documentary proof of actual payment. Evidence of a liability was sufficient to establish loss, whether or not the liability had been discharged. The absence of documents could increase the burden of explanation and affect credibility, but the ultimate question was whether the loss had been proved and the evidence believed. The Court of Appeal had acted wrongly by rejecting the trial judge’s credibility finding on matters that had not been put to the relevant witnesses. Only two adjustments were justified: a 25% reduction in the air-fare claim and credit for a Rs. 200,000 state payment. Past material damage was therefore restored at Rs. 7,418,227.
2. Future care. The Board applied the approach in Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345. The calculation required life expectancy, annual care costs, a multiplier for accelerated receipt, allowance for inflation and tax, and depletion of capital over the expected lifetime. The award of Rs. 6,000,000 was not excessive and was restored.
3. Moral damage. Awards should broadly reflect any consistent pattern in previous Mauritian decisions, adjusted for factual differences and inflation. Assessment was a question of judgment. Appellate interference required an error of principle, misunderstanding of facts, or an award that was manifestly insufficient or excessive. The awards to the injured woman and her family were not manifestly excessive, particularly in the exceptional circumstances, and were restored.
4. Interest. Section 197A of the Courts Act imposed a maximum rather than a mandatory 15% rate. Interest could run from commencement or close of pleadings, could be limited to the period before judgment, and could be awarded on some heads of loss but not others. The discretion compensated for delay in indemnification and was not a means of penalising a successful claimant for litigation conduct. Consistently with Central Electricity Board v Munian [1998] SCJ 255 and Houareau v Paul et Virginie [1976] MR 44, interest on past material damage ran from close of pleadings; interest on other sums ran from judgment under Article 1153.
5. Orders. The Court of Appeal’s order was set aside. The trial judgment was restored, varied so that judgment for the provisional administrator was Rs. 19,418,227. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeals, and the trial costs order stood. The Board added, obiter, that judgment should rarely be reserved for more than three months and that more than six months should be exceptional.

1. Privy Council: Set aside the Court of Appeal’s order, restored and varied the trial judgment, awarded interest on specified heads of loss, and ordered the respondents to pay the appeal costs: [2012] UKPC 18.
2. Court of Appeal of Mauritius: Reduced the damages award to Rs. 9,850,000 and affirmed the refusal of interest.
3. Supreme Court of Mauritius: The trial judge awarded Rs. 23,195,727 and declined to award statutory interest.