On Tuesday 9 December 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed Patrick Hofman’s lawsuit against Air Mauritius Limited. The Belgian pilot had sought Rs 24,550,206.91, claiming wrongful termination. The judge, Gaytree Jugessur-Manna, concluded that his dismissal was neither unjustified nor illegal.
Hofman, who was employed in 2003 and served as the president of the Airline Employees Association since 2016, was under a ten-year contract scheduled to run until March 2021. The case stemmed from an incident on October 5 and 6, 2017, when eleven pilots called in sick simultaneously, causing a major operational crisis for the airline.
Air Mauritius had urgently sought a medical assessment from Darné Clinic. Dr. Vinod Kumar Balakrishna stated that he contacted Hofman, who refused to undergo a medical examination.
In her ruling, Judge Jugessur-Manna highlighted that Hofman initially responded to the call but then cut off communication, despite his claims to the contrary. Witness testimonies from the doctor and Alain Leung Ying Wah, head of operations, were deemed credible. Leung explained that the simultaneous absence of eleven pilots led to significant disruptions: rebooking passengers, canceling or rerouting flights, financial losses, and damage to the airline’s reputation.
The court noted that, “The Court is satisfied that the simultaneous illness of so many pilots was undoubtedly part of an orchestrated plan to disrupt the defendant’s flight operations, resulting in financial and reputational damage to Air Mauritius.”
In this context, Air Mauritius terminated Hofman’s employment on October 6, 2017, citing clause 23(1) of his contract. The termination letter mentioned the “disruptions caused” and the “deterioration of industrial relations.” The judge observed that Hofman himself had signed a letter the day before, warning that the situation could reach a “point of no return.”
Ultimately, the court found that Hofman had failed to demonstrate wrongful termination. The dismissal was consistent with contractual provisions, and the airline had fulfilled its obligations, including informing him clearly of the reasons for his dismissal.
As a result, the court rejected Hofman’s complaint, affirming the lawfulness of Air Mauritius’s decision.