Thomas Gustave Meur (Appellant) v Marie Nathalie Bathfield and others (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0089

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Thomas Gustave Meur

Respondent(s)

Marie Nathalie Bathfield

(1) The Government of Mauritius, (2) The Conservator of Mortgages

The Ministry of Housing and Land Use Planning

The National Heritage Fund

Issue

Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius exceed its jurisdiction by making findings about, and determining, the validity of the “projet de vente”? Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err by finding that the first respondent had displayed a change of heart in connection with the “projet de vente”? Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius act ultra petita by erroneously influencing the decision in the main proceedings?

Facts

This appeal concerns a dispute over property situated at Pointe aux Cannoniers which forms part of Pas Géométriques (“the property”). The property has an outbuilding known as “Le Garage”. The appellant is the son of the first respondent. In the main proceedings, the appellant seeks to enforce a promise allegedly made by the first respondent to sell the appellant her leasehold rights in the property. The appellant alleges that the agreement was embodied in a “projet de vente”. On 1 August 2019, the appellant applied for an injunction preventing the first respondent from disposing of the leasehold rights in the property or causing the buildings situated on the land to be demolished or causing the destruction of the garden situated on the said portions of land, pending the determination of the main proceedings. On 23rd September 2019, the first respondent entered an application for a writ habere facias possessionem for the first respondent to quit, leave and vacate “Le Garage”. At a hearing on 26 October 2022, Maghooa J granted the appellant’s application for an injunction and dismissed the first respondent’s application for a writ habere facias possessionem. The Supreme Court of Mauritius allowed the first respondent’s appeal in respect of both decisions. The appellant now seeks to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

8 September 2025

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Lloyd-Jones

Lord Richards

Lady Simler

Permission to Appeal decision date

3 November 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

The application does not raise a point of law which is arguable or of general public importance. The conditions for special leave are not met because there is no arguable point of law of general public importance. Accordingly the application for interlocutory relief is refused.

Back to top