Stephan Lawrence was recently released from prison in Florida after spending more than 6 years for being found in contempt of court for refusing to turn over assets in a trust established in Mauritius. Imprisonment for contempt was not a viable vehicle to obtain assets in Maritius, but could efforts in Mauritius have been more successful--possibly.

Mauritius has its own rules of court, but does seek guidance from English common law. The Mauritian Supreme Court in Moraby v. Dodger de Speville and Co. and anor, 1982 MR 40, noted that Mauritian rules do no provide for inspection or discovery of documents in the hands of a third party. But, the court commented that if a party "wanted to have a document existing but not available to them, they should have made the necessary application to a Judge in Chambers by extra judical process to see or inspect the document." Such an application would most likely follow the doctrine established in England in Norwich Pharmacal Company v. Comm. of Customers and Excise, 3 W.L.R. 164 (H.R.1973), where pre-action discovery of bank records, company or trust information, corporate records, etc. was allowed in order to discover the identity of the wrongdoers.

But, since it is difficult to predict whether a Norwich Pharmacal application-type order would be successful, litigants should consider the use of a Mareva Injunction that does exist under Mauritius law. The English remedy made popular in the case Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulk Carriers S.A, 1 A.L.L E.R. 213 (1980), allows for an injunction to freeze the dissipation of assets where there are issues of flight, asset secretion and asset movement, even before a plenary lawsuit is pending.

The injunction does not create rights in property, but merely freezes the assets until subsequent adjudication. Litigants in Mauritius must satisfy onerous conditions in order to obtain an injunction, including whether it is just and convenient to grant the injunction. Significantly, a Mareva injunction allows for a complimentary discovery order requiring the defendant to provide an affidavit of assets and liabilities and authorizing the claimant to inquire of banks and brokerage houses, etc. about the details of the assets sought to be enjoined. This asset discovery, unlike a Norwich Pharmacal application, must be narrowly focused.

Thus, litigants in the US are not limited to compelling the production of information or the turnover of assets through US laws. Courts in Mauritius may be a more successful alternative.