RECEPTION OF ENGLISH LAW IN MALAY STATES

As the reception of English law in the Malay States,R.J.Wilkinson said;

“There can be no doubt that Moslem Law would have ended by becoming the law of Malaya had not
British law stepped in to check it”.

Malay adat is applied to the Malays.The non-Malays were governed by their personal laws or if they were
British subjects,English Law.These Laws continued to apply,subject to modifications made by specific
legislation,until the formal reception of the English Law.The formation of the Federated Malay States showed
that the Ruler of the states started to accept the British intervention in Malaysia.Section 2(1) of the Civil Law
Enactment 1937,give the permission to accept of the English law provided that the inhabiatants permit and
subject to such qualifications as local circumstances render necessary.The Unfederated malay States started to
accept the English Law when the English Law formally received and applied by the virtue of Civil
Law(Extension) Ordinance 1951 but indirectly the Unfederated Malay States had accepted the English Law
before those dates as mentioned by Edmonds J.C. in Shaik Abdul Latif Bux v Shaik Alias Bux;

“The British treaties with the Ruler of these States merely provided that the advice of the British
administrators should be followed and in accordance with such advice Courts have been established by
Enactment,British judges appointed,and a British administration established..”.

Common law and the rulers of equity were applied in the Straits Settlement by virtue of the three Charters of
Justice.The Charters,however,did not not apply to the Malay States.With the introduction of the Residential
System in Perak by virtue of the terms stated under Pangkor treaty 1874,the Malay Sultans were forced to
establish the English-style courts and the English judges were appointed.With such a judicial “apparatus”in
place,it was therefore only a matter of time that the common law and equity are applied.The Civil Law
Enactment No.3 of 1937 had been enacted,and this was the first step towards the enforcement of the English
Legal System in the Malay States.The application of the said ordinance was only for the Federated Malay
States,but on 31 December 1951,it was extended to Penang and Malacca.

English Law was introduced informally and indirectly through the Residential System in two ways:

 The Enactment,on the advice of the British administrators,of a number of specific legislation modelled
on Indian Legislation which,in turn,was based on the English Law.
 The decision of the courts established by the British administrators.The higher rank of the judiciary
were mostly filled by English or English-trained judges who naturally turned to English Law whenever
they were unable to find any local law to apply to new situations,particularly of a commercial
character ,caused by the very fact of British influences.1

1
Text book,Malaysian Legal History(2010)
THE BRITISH INTERVENTION IN MALAY STATES:AN OVERVIEW

Following the loss of Malacca,its ruling elite and their followers eventually established the sultanate of
Johore,commanding the southern Peninsula and Riau Islands.Elsewhere,on the Peninsula other states
flourished,usually claiming legitimacy through connection with the former Malacca and paying tribute to
Johore.

In spite of Portugese attempts to subdue Johore it prospered in the late 16th and early 17th centuries,especially
when the Dutch arrived on the scene.Basing themselves in Java,the Dutch saw Johore as a useful
counterweight to the Portugese at Malacca and developed trading agreements with the Sultanate.In 1641
Johore helped the Dutch oust the Portugese from Malacca,which than became a minor,outlying base in a
growing Dutch Empire.

The Dutch had considerably greater resources than the Portuguese had been able to deploy and also,by the
17th century,greater resources than another Western power,the Spanish,who had established themselves in the
Philippine archipelago in the previous century.But Dutch resources were not enough to full-fill their intended
goal of trade dominance over the region.The Malay-Muslims trading world of the Peninsula and Archipelago
thus persisted with considerable vigour after the advent of the Dutch.

The Dutch did attempt,however,to monopolise the region’s most lucrative products,particularly the
spices.They also took care to concentrate their naval and military resources against any states which emerged
as a major threat to their monopolising strategies.Thus no Malay state could ever hope to recreate the
commercial power of 15th century Malacca.Johore and other Malay states were now narrowly restricted in
their trading and political potential.

One consequences was the heightened,and in the end mutually destructive,competition between
states.Johor,for example,long regarded Aceh and Sumatera trading states as more serious opponents than any
Western power.In Northern-Borneo,Brunei,which had suffered Spanish attacks in 1578,saw as it was a serious
opponent the slave trading sultanate of Sulu(located in what is today the southern Philippines).In the 17th
century Sulu acquired from Brunei sovereignty over most of the era which today constitutes the Malaysian
State of Sabah.

Their scramble of diminishing trade share may account for the internal instability for which many Malay
states would become notorious.A Malay Sultan was in theory an awesome figure.Both South-East Asia’s pre-
Muslims Hindu-Buddhist traditions and Muslim thought invested him with divinely ordained power,making
him temporal and spiritual supremo in his realm.Most Malay commoners existed in debt-bondage
relationships with their royal and noble superiors,an trembled before their authority,but the Malay ruling
classes competed vigorously amongst themselves for power and control of the material and human resources
of their states.2

This could merely mean that sultans were often weak,ineffectual rulers.More damagingly it could mean
lengthy periods of civil strife.In one such episodes Sultan Mahmud of Johore was murdered in 1699 and he
was last direct descendent of the Melakan royal house.His dead foreshadowed more than a century of unstable
authority in the sultanate and in other Peninsular States.

The politics of Malay states were furthere complicated in the 18th century by a number of religion
migrations.Bugis group originating in Sulawesi(known previously as the celebes) established themselves in
many states of the Peninsula and Archipelago.Skilled sailor-navigators,fighters and traders,the Bugis often
became the dominant force in states where they settled.On the Peninsula,Selangor became effectively a Bugis
State.Meanwhile Minangkabau groups from west Sumatera Highlands were also colonising Sumatra’s east-
coast and crossing the Malacca Straits to the Peninsula,where they established communities which ultimately
would form the basis of the state of Negeri Sembilan.In northwestern Borneo the sultanate of Brunei had to
come to terms with the adventurous and fearsome ‘head-hunter’ warriors who spearheaded the migration of
the Dayak(iban) communities.Rival Brunei chiefs often struck up alliances with rival Dayak
groups,sharpening conflicts in the Sultanate.Both the Bugis and Minangkabau migrants of the 18th century
would overtime adopt Malay-Muslims custom and to all intents and purpose to merge with Malay society.The
Dayaks would be tamed under British colonial rule but would always retain their distinctive,non-
Muslim,cultures.

Other factors would also increase instability in the 18th century Malay world.The growing power of the British
in India reoriented the trading patterns of the sub-continent.British traders in the Southeast Asia were often
welcomed as potential allies against other Western or local powers,but their cargoes,featuring opium and
firearms,were deadly.Meanwhile,Chinese doing business in the region tended increasingly to favour linkages
with Western rather than local governments.They were thus heralding the ‘middle men’ roles which Chinese
would hold between the indigenous peoples and the Western colonial regimes of the 19th and 20th centuries.

On the Peninsula the Thais also became a major intrusive force in the later 18th century.The Thai kingdom of
Ayudhya had claimed sovereignty on the Peninsula since the 14th century,and often exacted tribute from the
more northerly states.In 1767 the city of Ayudhya was destroyed by the Brumese ,but from 1782 a new thai
dynasty arose.

2
Malaysia Legal History
Patani effectively lost its independence and was absorbed within the Thai administrative sphere,thus creating
permanent Malay-Muslim minority in Buddhist Thailand.The other states continued as tributaries,running
their own affairs,but Bangkok’s enforcement of tribute payments and other decrees could be brutal and
destructive.

In 1786,the ruler of Kedah,hoping to win an ally against the Thais,ceded Penang Island to the (British) East
India Company,which was looking for a safe harbour and trading base in the region.In 1800 a strip of territory
on the mainland opposite the island was also ceded.The Kedah rulers merely acquired an annual pension for
the ceded territory to their chagrin the Company firmly refused to become involved in their struggles with the
Thais.However,the first step had been taken towards British occupation of the Peninsula.
FEDERATED MALAY STATES

The Federated Malay States (FMS) was a federation of four protected states in the Malay Peninsula—
Selangor, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang established by the British government in 1895, which lasted
until 1946, when they, together with the Straits Settlements and the Unfederated Malay States, formed the
Malayan Union. Two years later, the Union became the Federation of Malaya and finally Malaysia in 1963
with the inclusion of Sabah (then North Borneo), Sarawak and Singapore.

The United Kingdom was responsible for foreign affairs and defence of the federation, whilst the states
continued to be responsible for their domestic policies. Even so, the British Resident General would give
advice on domestic issues, and the states were bound by treaty to follow that advice. The federation had Kuala
Lumpur, which was then part of Selangor, as its capital. The first FMS Resident General was Sir Frank
Swettenham.

The federation along with the other Malay states of the peninsular and British possessions was overrun and
occupied by the Japanese. After the liberation of Malaya due to the Japanese surrender, the federation was not
restored. However, the federal form of government was retained as the principal model for consolidating the
separate States as an independent Federation of Malaya and the Federation's later evolution into Malaysia.

Although the Resident General was the real administrator of the federation, each of the four constituent states
of the federation retained their respective hereditary rulers (sultans). At the formation of the Federated Malay
States, the reigning sultans were:

 Sultan Alaiddin Sulaiman Shah of Selangor

 Sultan Idris Murshidul ‘Adzam Shah I of Perak
 Yamtuan Tuanku Muhammad Shah of Negeri Sembilan
 Sultan Ahmad Mu’adzam Shah of Pahang

In 1897 the first Durbar was convened in the royal town of Kuala Kangsar, Perak as the platform for
discussions for the four Rulers. This formed the basis for the Conference of Rulers that was created later on
under Article 38 of the Malaysian Constitution on August 27, 1957.

Resident-General

From 1896 to 1936, real power lay in the hands of the Resident-General, later known as Chief Secretary of the
Federation.

Sir Frank Athelstane Swettenham 1896 1901

Sir William Hood Treacher 1901 1904
Sir William Thomas Taylor 1904 1910
Sir Arthur Henderson Young 1910 1911
DISTRICTS

1. Hulu Perak (Upper Perak)

2. Larut and Krian

3. Kuala Kangsar

4. Kinta

5. Hilir Perak (Lower Perak)

6. Batang Padang

1. The territories of Dinding and Pangkor Island was ceded to the

British, administered as part of the Straits Settlement. Returned to
the government of Perak in 1935.

2. The capital of Perak was moved to Ipoh in 1935 and has

remained there ever since.

Selangor

1. Kuala Selangor

2. Hulu Selangor

3. Kuala Lumpur

4. Klang

5. Hulu Langat

6. Kuala Langat
NEGERI SEMBILAN

1. Coast District

2. Seremban District

3. Jelebu

4. Kuala Pilah

5. Tampin

Pahang

1. Hulu Pahang

2. Temerloh

3. Kuantan

4. Pekan
 Acknowledgement

First and foremost, we would like to thank to our supervisor of this project, Mr.Hasbollah for the valuable
guidance and advice. He inspired us greatly to work in this project. His willingness to motivate us contributed
tremendously to our project. We also would like to thank him for showing us some example that related to the
topic of our project. Besides, we would like to thank the authority of Multimedia University (MMU) for
providing us with a good environment and facilities to complete this project.

Also, we would like to take this opportunity to thank to the Centre of Law Programming of Multimedia
University (MMU) for offering this subject, Foundation In Law. It gave us an opportunity to participate and
learn about the operation of flights ticket reservation. In addition, we would also like to thank the Malaysian
Legal History text book and Malaysian Legal Journal (MLJ) which provide us valuable information as the
guidance of our project. Finally, an honorable mention goes to our families and friends for their
understandings and supports on us in completing this project. Without helps of the particular that mentioned
above, we would face many difficulties while doing this

I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and
help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to my team who are Fazierah Bt. Lotfi,Wan Sarah Mansor,Mendy Leong ,Selvantheran
A/L Segaran and myself Siva Priya A/P Shamugam for their guidance and constant supervision as well as for
providing necessary information regarding the project & also for their support in completing the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents & member of my family for their kind co-operation
and encouragement which help me in completion of this project.

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to industry persons for giving me such attention and
time.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague in developing the project and people who have willingly
helped me out with their abilities.
The English common law was introduced into the colonies by two methods:

With respect to settled colonies, the colonists carried with them only so much ofthe English law as was
applicable to their own situation and the condition of theinfant colony. The date of the establishment of the
colony was the date of reception.

For conquered territories, the colonists retained the existing legal system only inso far as it was not repugnant
to natural justice. The existing system was retained until such time as other arrangements could be made for
English law to be introduced.

RECEPTION OF ENGLISH STATUTORY LAW

During the colonial era the UK was considered an imperial parliament which had the power to enact laws for
its colonies via statute. This law was imposed in three main ways:

 by express extension by the UK Parliament of particular statutes to apply generally to all territories or
to a named territory. These Acts usually concerned constitutional matters and the administration of the
territories
 incorporation by reference in the colonial legislation. This could be specific, relating to a particular
Act, or general, relating to a body of law, for example, jurisdiction in probate divorce could be
incorporated by the following words

"Proceedings shall be subject to this ordinance and to the rules of court exercised by the court in
conformity with the law and practice from time to time in force in England";

 incorporation by repetition: this was the most common method. Here, a particular English statute was
simply repeated verbatim and enacted by the local legislature.

Straits Settlements

After transfer of Straits Settlements to Colonial Office, Legislative Council of the SS was formed. It was
authorized to enact legislation for the settlement with effect from 4 February 1867. Examples – Evidence
Ordinance 1893 and Penal Code 1871, which came into force in 1872. Civil Law Ordinance 1878 empowered
Supreme Court of SS to administer common law and principles of equity concurrently, and provided for the
latter to prevail in the event of conflict. Ordinance also provided for considerable body of English legislation
to operate on continuing basis in commercial matters.

Malay States

The Residency/Protectorate system also led to the introduction of legislation on the advice of the Residents,
which was modeled on English law, or in some cases, on Indian law.

Hence, on British Residents' 'advice', Malay sultans in FMS enacted numerous laws which adopted Indian
codification of principles of English law.

 Penal Code of SS (based on Indian penal Code) first adopted in Perak by Order in Council of 28 June
1884; later in other FMS states; eventually incorporated in Revised Edition of the laws of the FMS,
1936, as Chapter 45.
  Evidence Ordinance of SS (based on Indian Evidence Act) first adopted in Selangor by Courts
Regulation of 1893 and in Perak by Order in Council No 9 of 1894; then other states in FMS;
eventually incorporated in Revised Edition in 1936 as Chapter 10;
 Contracts Act of India – originally adopted in Selangor by Selangor Courts Regulation, 1893;
subsequently by enactments in Perak, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan in 1899 and in Pahang in 1900.
Eventually incorporated in Revised Edition in 1936 as chapter 36.

 Criminal Procedure Code of India – adopted and enacted in various Malay States in FMS in 1900 –
eventually incorporated in Revised Edition of 1936 as Chapter 6.
 Land Enactments were introduced in various states between 1897 and 1903 – these introduced the
Torrens System of registration of title.

Effects of legislations: to replace former Malay-Muslim laws by enactments based on English law
principles.

The formal omnibus introduction of English law in the FMS took place in 1937, through Civil Law Enactment
passed by FMS Federal Council (No 3 of 1937, which came into force on 19 March 1937).

 Legal historians are of the view that the Enactment did not really effect any great change to the de
facto situation but merely gave statutory endorsement to the courts to do what they had already been
unofficially doing long before the passing of that legislation. This is because long before 1937, English
law, through the Residential System, had been adopted both informally and indirectly in the Malay
States.

Terrell Ag CJ – Yong Joo Lin & Ors v Fung Poi Fong [1941] MLJ Rep 54, 55

 "Principles of English law have for many years been accepted in the Federated Malay States where no
other provisions have been made by Statute. Section 2(1) of the Civil Law Enactment, therefore,
merely gives statutory reception to a practice which the courts have previously followed."

 In 1948 the British Government and the Malay Rulers concluded the Federation of Malaya agreement,
thereby establishing the Federation of Malaya on 1 February 1948 (comprising the Unfederated Malay
States together with the four Federated Malay States, Penang and Malacca). Singapore was excluded
and remained a separate Crown colony.
 After Federation of Malaya was formed on 1 February 1948, the Civil Law Enactment 1937 of FMS
was extended to UMS by Civil Law (Extension) Ordinance 1951.

 In 1956, both enactments were repealed and replaced by the Civil Law Ordinance 1956 which applied
to the whole of the Federation of Malaya.

 Civil Law Ordinance 1956 has 3 sections relevant to application of English law – Sections 3(1); 5 and
6.
Sarawak

The formal reception of English law took place in Sarawak only in 1928 when the Law of Sarawak Ordinance
of that year provided the statutory authority on the source of law to be applied by courts. It stated that the Law
of England, in so far as it was not modified by Orders of the Rajah (i.e. Brooke) and so far as it was applicable
having regard to native customs, was to be the law of Sarawak.

North Borneo/Sabah

The legislative introduction of English law came in 1938 through the Civil Law Ordinance 1938. It
provisions, though more elaborate, were substantially similar to those of the Sarawak Ordinance, the major
difference being that the modifications to English law by local customary laws were explicitly limited:
namely, only to the extent that such customary laws were not 'inhumane, unconscionable or contrary to public
policy'.

As in the Malay States, the legislation in North Borneo States merely formalized the factual situation. Long
before such legislation sanctioned the general reception of English law, principles of English law and equity
had been assimilated, informally and indirectly, through the same means as in the FMS.

Sarawak and North Borneo under Colonial Office

In 1946 (ie, after the end of the Pacific War), North Borneo and Sarawak were ceded to the Crown (ie,
brought under the direct control of the British Colonial Office in London).

English law was received afresh and in larger measure Sarawak and North Borneo in 1949 and 1951
respectively. Section 2 of the Sarawak Application of Laws Ordinance 1949 and of the North Borneo
Application of Laws Ordinance 1951 provided for the reception of common law and doctrines of equity,
together with statutes of general application, as administered in England at the time of the respective
Ordinances.

The reception of English law in both states was only to the extent permitted by local circumstances and
customs and subject, further, to such qualifications as local circumstances and native customs rendered
necessary.

The British administration also reorganized the court systems in these states by enacting Sarawak, North
Borneo and Brunei Courts) Order in Council, 1951. Under this Order, the Supreme Court of Sarawak and
North Borneo (and Brunei) comprising the Court of Appeal and High Court were established. The Supreme
Court existed until 1963 when North Borneo (renamed Sabah) and Sarawak became part of the enlarged
Federation renamed Malaysia.

English law (common law and rules of equity) forms one of the sources of "unwritten" law in Malaysia.

This is in virtue of Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution defines the word "law" to include "the common
law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof". Due to a qualification in this definition,
it means that English law (in general) is not always received in Malaysia.
English common law means a body of general rules made common to the whole of England and Wales by the
old common law courts. In this sense, English common law is said to be that law which is unwritten (i.e. not
enacted) and is solely rooted in the decisions of the courts of the land.

English rules of equity means the body of principles and rules developed and applied by the English Courts of
Chancery. Rules of equity were developed in order to restore and mitigate the defects and harshness of the
common law.

MANNER OF RECEIVING ENGLISH LAW IN PRESENT DAY MALAYSIA

English law has been received in Malaysia both,

a. expressly, as provided in Section 3 (1) of the Civil Law Act 1956; and

b. impliedly, when the court decides cases according to "justice and right".

Section 3 (1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 provides:

Save so far as other provision has been made or may hereafter be made by any written law in force in
Malaysia, the Court shall:

a) in West Malaysia or any part thereof, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity as
administered in England on 7th day of April 1956

b) in Sabah, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity, together with statutes of general
application, as administered or in force in England on 1st day of December 1951

c) in Sarawak, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity, together with statutes of general
application, as administered or in force in England on 12th day December 1949

PRE-CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW

The application of the English common law and rules of equity (and in Sabah and Sarawak, English statutes
of general application) in Malaysia is conditional, i.e. it is subject to three conditions:

a) absence of local statutes/legislation covering the same matter;

b) cutoff-dates; and

c) suited to local circumstances.

Absence of local statutes/legislation

The authority of condition (a) above is the qualification contained in the opening words of Section 3 (1) –
"Save so far as other provision has been made or may hereafter be made by any written law in force in
Malaysia …"
Under the CLA, therefore, English law is referred to only as a means to fill in gaps in the local system

In Yong Joo Lin v Fung Poi Fong (1941) MLJ Rep.54, Terrell Ag. CJ said: "Principles of English law have
for many years been accepted in the Federated Malay States where no other provisions [sic] has been made by
statute…"

This is further affirmed by the Privy Council case of UMBC Corp Bhd and Another v Pemungut Hasil
Tanah, Kota Tinggi1984, where the Privy Council said that since the National Land Code was a complete and
comprehensive code of law governing the land tenure and other matters affecting land in Malaysia, there was
no room for the importation of any relevant rules of English law save in so far as the Code itself might have
expressly provided.

In Attorney-General, Malaysia v Manjeet Singh Dhillon 1991, the Supreme Court said that in the absence of
any local legislation concerning contempt of court, the common law of contempt should be applied under
Section 3 of the Civil Law 1956.

English law is applicable only to the extent permitted by local circumstances and inhabitants, and subject to
qualifications necessitated by local circumstances. This qualification is contained in Section 3 (1)(b) of the
Civil Law Act 1956, where it states:

"Provided always that the said common law, rules of equity and statutes of general application shall be
applied so far only as the circumstances of the States of Malaysia and their respective inhabitants permit
and subject to such qualifications as local circumstances render necessary".

This is to avoid a wholesale importation of English law as an alien system onto a society that is socially and
culturally different from the English society.

Jamil Harun v Yang Kamsiah [1984] 1 MLJ 217

"It is for the courts in Malaysia to decide, subject always to statutory provisions, whether to follow English
law… in determining whether to accept their guidance, the court will have regard to the circumstances of the
states in Malaysia…"

See the effect of the 'local circumstances' proviso in the application of English law in Syarikat Batu Sinar v
UMBC Finance [1990] 2 CLJ 691.

MALAYSIAN ATTITUDES TO RECEPTION – STATIC OR CREATIVE?

There have been discussions and debates on the reception of law in Malaysia on the relevant dates of
reception and their significance. However, while this is important, it is suggested here that the more significant
issue should be the attitude of Malaysian judges and legislatures to the doctrine of reception itself. The first
emphasises the historical accuracy of the law and legal system, while the second is more concerned with
taking that historical foundation and moulding it into a viable law and legal system for the future.

What effect does the doctrine of reception have on Malaysian law and legal system? The controversial issue in
relation to the reception of law is deciding to what extent independent Malaysian legal systems are bound to
follow common law legal principles as defined by English judges. This begs the following question. What
exactly did Malaysian legal system receive, or what was imposed upon it? Is it the common law as a legal
tradition and a mental attitude, or is it a set of binding legal principles and legislative interpretations which
only have validity as defined by English common law judges? Clearly, the first construct will give to
Malaysian legal system a certain flexibility to define Malaysian jurisprudence according to its own image and
likeness, ie, the potential to create an indigenous jurisprudence which conforms to the characteristics of the
common law legal tradition but which may differ in detail. On the other hand, conforming to the idea that
Malaysian judges are bound to follow law as expressed by their English counterparts imports a definite
rigidity to Malaysian legal system.

RECEPTION OF LAW AS A LIBERATING CONCEPT

While English law was imposed on the region in a rigid context, the doctrine of imposition contains within
itself sufficient ammunition to liberate societies on the receiving end from the negative aspects of the
phenomenon, leaving behind only its intrinsic value. These negative implications are wide and may culminate
in the abortion of the true development of the legal system and indeed, the society. On the other hand, the
value of received law, is the belonging of transplanted societies to a great legal tradition. Judges must,
therefore, actively seek ways to emphasise the positive aspects of the doctrine while mitigating its negative
effects.

The rule on local circumstances or conditions, for example, can indeed be an elastic concept, as broad as a
court is willing to accept. The importance which a court is willing to give to cultural and social differences,
policy and the like is surely linked to the value that the court places on these differences to the particular
society. If sufficient worth is accorded to such differences, then the threshold of 'repugnance' or 'strong
argument' outlined in the case law for disassociating or de-linking from imposed English law, will be easier to
cross

In the end, history has demonstrated, from the experiences of Canada, Australia, and even 'developing'
countries such as Malaysia and Hong Kong, that as the society and legal system mature, it becomes more
difficult to reconcile or submerge these differences and the courts will opt for a more divergent approach to
the common law based on the peculiar local circumstances of the society. In the Commonwealth Caribbean,
thus far, we have taken only timid steps toward this more liberating concept of receiving law.