The Business Judgment Rule as a Protective Armor for Directors' Responsibilities: A Comparative Study Among Mauritius, United Kingdom, and United States.

This article critically examines the protection afforded to directors of Mauritian companies under the business judgment rule (BJR), a corporate law doctrine that shields directors from personal liability for business decisions made in good faith and with due care. Unlike Mauritius, which currently lacks statutory or judicial recognition of the BJR, both the United Kingdom and the United States apply the rule, albeit with differing scopes and mechanisms: UK law relies on case law and statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006 to assess directors’ care and diligence, while Delaware law explicitly allows companies to include charter provisions exempting directors from liability for breaches of the duty of care. The study recommends that Mauritius adopt the BJR with appropriate legal preconditions to balance director accountability and protection, thereby encouraging informed risk-taking and innovation while preventing abuse of power.