Dismissal: Patrick Hofman Loses His Case Against Air Mauritius

The Supreme Court has dismissed Patrick Hofman's complaint against Air Mauritius, ruling that his dismissal, which occurred after eleven pilots simultaneously reported sick, was in accordance with his contract and did not constitute wrongful termination.

On December 9, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected Patrick Hofman's lawsuit against Air Mauritius Limited. The Belgian pilot was seeking Rs 24,550,206.91 for wrongful termination of contract. Judge Gaytree Jugessur-Manna concluded that his dismissal was "neither unjustified nor illegal."

Hired in 2003, Patrick Hofman had also been the president of the Airline Employees Association since 2016. His ten-year contract was due to last until March 2021. This case stemmed from an incident that occurred on October 5 and 6, 2017, when eleven pilots reported sick, causing an operational crisis.

Air Mauritius had requested an urgent medical assessment from the Darné Clinic. Dr. Vinod Kumar Balakrishna stated that he had contacted Patrick Hofman, who had refused "any medical visit."

In her ruling, Judge Gaytree Jugessur-Manna noted that the pilot had responded to the first call before cutting off communications, despite his contrary claims. The testimonies of the doctor and Alain Leung Ying Wah, the operations manager, were deemed credible. Leung explained that the simultaneous absence of eleven pilots led to significant disruptions: passengers being relocated, flights canceled or redirected, financial losses, and damage to the company's reputation.

"The Court is satisfied that the simultaneous sickness of so many pilots was no doubt part of an arranged plan to disrupt the defendant’s (Air Mauritius) flights operations with the inevitable consequence of financial and reputational loss to the defendant," stated the judge.

In this context, Air Mauritius dismissed Hofman on October 6, 2017, under clause 23(1) of his contract. The termination letter cited the "disruptions caused" and the "deterioration of industrial relations." The judge noted that Patrick Hofman himself had signed a letter the day before warning that the situation could reach "a point of no return."

She concluded that Patrick Hofman had not demonstrated a wrongful termination of contract. The dismissal was in accordance with contractual provisions, and the company had fulfilled its obligations, including clearly informing him of the reasons for his termination.

As a result, the pilot's complaint was dismissed, confirming the legality of Air Mauritius's decision.