Privy Council dismisses Mauritius director's appeal against order to repay £615,000 company loan in Aldridge v Mordaunt Estates
The Privy Council delivered judgment on 6 October 2026 in Stephen Anthony Aldridge v Mordaunt Estates Ltd (Mauritius) ([2026] UKPC 34), dismissing the appeal of a director ordered by the Mauritius courts to repay £615,000 plus approximately £31,500 in damages to the company, Mordaunt Estates Ltd (MEL). The case centred on whether a payment of £615,000 made by MEL to its director Mr Aldridge constituted a loan prohibited by section 159(5) of the Companies Act 2001 of Mauritius (the 2001 Act), which restricts companies from making loans to their own directors. The Board, comprising Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, and Lord Burrows (who gave the judgment), examined five grounds of appeal: whether a preliminary objection by MEL should dispose of the appeal; whether the £615,000 was indeed a prohibited loan; whether Mr Aldridge should have been permitted to rely at trial on a shareholders' resolution dated 15 February 2010, which he argued retrospectively authorised the payments under section 159(9) of the 2001 Act; whether the Court of Civil Appeal's decision should be set aside for apparent bias; and whether the quantum of damages was arbitrary. MEL is in liquidation, with its liquidator, Vasoodayyen Virasami, representing the company in these proceedings. Mr Aldridge represented himself at trial, though he was represented by counsel on appeal. The Privy Council heard the appeal on 21 July 2026 before handing down judgment on 6 October 2026.
Why this matters
This Privy Council decision engages core principles of company law applicable across Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Mauritius, the Caribbean, and parts of Asia Pacific, where the Privy Council remains the final appellate court. The central questions on director loans and the ability of shareholders to retrospectively authorise prohibited transactions are live issues in English company law as well, making the Board's reasoning of direct relevance to lawyers advising on directors' duties and related-party transactions in multiple jurisdictions. The apparent bias ground adds a procedural dimension relevant to commercial litigation practitioners.
On the Ground
This judgment is of direct relevance to corporate disputes, directors' duties, and cross-border litigation practice groups. It will be cited by lawyers advising companies in Privy Council jurisdictions on loan prohibition regimes and the limits of shareholder ratification. Firms with offshore and international dispute resolution practices in particular will want to digest the Board's analysis. A trainee on a Privy Council appeal of this kind would assist with disclosure review and categorisation, chronology preparation covering the long litigation history here (trial in 2016, Court of Civil Appeal in 2018, Privy Council hearing in July 2026), witness statement bundles, and court filing and service.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“Can shareholders retrospectively ratify a loan to a director that was prohibited by statute when it was made, and what are the limits of that ratification power?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved