Mauritius vs Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6)

Mauritius
3 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
3 DB16-20 methodology
in 2019
Mauritius rank
43rd
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank
43rd

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) over time

  • Mauritius
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
0123201520172019

How they compare

Mauritius currently reports 3 DB16-20 methodology against 3 DB16-20 methodology in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a difference of 0 DB16-20 methodology.

Across all 5 years both countries report, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has been ahead every year.

Mauritius ranks 43rd and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 43rd of 188 countries.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher enforcing contracts: case management (0-6), Mauritius or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
Mauritius, at 3 DB16-20 methodology against 3 DB16-20 methodology in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as of 2019.
What is the difference in enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) between Mauritius and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
0 DB16-20 methodology, with Mauritius ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritius and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
How do Mauritius and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank globally for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
Mauritius ranks 43rd and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 43rd of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a pretrial conference is available; (v) whether an electronic case management system for judges is available; and (vi) whether an electronic case management system for lawyers is available. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.