Bissonauth v Sugar Insurance Fund Board

A party cannot execute a judgment for a sum which has not been adjudged. An appellate order allowing an appeal on a defined issue does not reopen unchallenged findings or determine issues that were not argued. General concluding words such as “in all the circumstances” must be read in context and do not grant every remedy or amount originally claimed. Where execution is attempted without an obtained judgment for the claimed sum, an interlocutory injunction restraining the attempt may properly be granted.

Mr Bissonauth appealed to the Privy Council against an order of the Supreme Court of Mauritius upholding an interlocutory injunction granted by Fekna J. The injunction restrained him from seizing the Sugar Board’s property in purported execution of an alleged judgment debt.

The dispute followed an earlier employment claim. The Board had allowed an earlier appeal on the issue of whether his dismissal was justified, but had not addressed unpursued challenges to the calculation of his employment period or remuneration, nor his later claim for interest at the maximum rate. The Sugar Board had paid Rs5.5m, while Mr Bissonauth sought to execute for a further sum. The central issue was whether he had obtained a judgment for that further sum.

Lord Wilson delivered the judgment of the Board, which dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Bissonauth to pay the Sugar Board’s costs.

1. Effect of the earlier Board judgment. The earlier appeal concerned only whether Mr Bissonauth’s dismissal had been justified and whether severance allowance should therefore be calculated at the punitive rate. The challenge to the calculation of his remuneration was not pursued, and there was no challenge to the finding about the length of his employment. The claim for interest had not been addressed by any court.
2. Construction of the appellate order. The concluding words “in all the circumstances” referred to the circumstances considered in the preceding reasoning. They did not reverse the Supreme Court’s adverse findings on employment length or remuneration, or amount to a judgment for the full sum originally claimed. The Board’s order could not be construed as deciding matters which had not been argued or determined.
3. Execution. Mr Bissonauth had no judgment against the Sugar Board for any sum beyond the amount already paid. His attempt to levy execution was therefore misconceived. The principle is that a judgment cannot be executed until it has been obtained. The interlocutory injunction restraining further purported execution was rightly granted.
4. The Board did not determine the remaining issues concerning interest, tax deductions and the housing-loan deduction. It reiterated that Mr Bissonauth remained bound by the earlier adverse findings on the length of his continuous employment and the amount of his monthly remuneration. There was no need to address criticisms of subsidiary reasoning concerning possible prejudice to Mauritius.

• Privy Council: dismissed the appeal against the interlocutory injunction and awarded the respondent its costs: [2018] UKPC 33.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: Hamuth and Devat JJ dismissed Mr Bissonauth’s appeal against Fekna J’s order on 27 October 2015.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius in chambers: Fekna J granted the interlocutory injunction on 5 February 2014.