What people agree to do
A renovation, a sale, a paid service or a valid gratuitous undertaking can create contractual duties. Questions include whether the agreement is valid, what was promised and what happens when performance fails.
Three fields. Many everyday consequences.
Obligations without an agreement
Some obligations arise without a contract, such as the recovery of a payment made without a valid basis. The Code’s categories and Article 974A matter. Calling every such claim “unjust enrichment” does not resolve its legal basis.
Civil duties independent of agreement
Negligence, defamation and other civil wrongs may involve duties that do not depend on an agreement between the parties. Local provisions, proof, remedies and prescription still have to be checked.
Current-law explanation
Article 917A is not the whole Civil Code. It is not a general route for English criminal law, tax, immigration or every property and succession rule. Other references to England exist elsewhere, including separate trust and proof provisions.
Primary legal text
Read the whole article.
The first paragraph does two jobs: it receives law by subject and gives an interpretive direction for named Code articles. The provisos and paragraphs (2) and (3) qualify both the broad story and its application.
Article 917A · exact published text
(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, from and after the coming into operation of this article the law of England for the time being relating to contracts, quasi-contracts and torts shall mutatis mutandis extend to Saint Lucia, and the provisions of articles 918 to 989 and 991 to 1132 of this Code shall as far as practicable be construed accordingly; and the said articles shall cease to be construed in accordance with the law of Lower Canada or the “Coutume de Paris”:
Provided, however, as follows:—
(a) the English doctrine of consideration shall not apply to contracts governed by the law of Saint Lucia and the term “consideration” shall have the meaning herein assigned to it;
(b) the term “consideration” when used with respect to contracts shall continue as heretofore to mean the cause or reason of entering into a contract or of incurring an obligation; and consideration may be either onerous or gratuitous;
(c) third persons shall continue to have and exercise such rights with respect to contracts as they heretofore had and enjoyed under article 962 or any other statute.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this article shall not be construed as affecting the provisions of the Ninth Chapter of this Book (which relate to Proof of Obligations), or as affecting the provisions of the Fifth to Sixteenth Books of this Part or of any other statute relating to specific contracts save in so far as the general rules relating to contracts are applicable to such contracts.
(3) Where a conflict exists between the law of England and the express provisions of this Code or of any other statute, the provisions of this Code or of such statute shall prevail.
Added by Act 34 of 1956. Spacing and paragraph presentation adapted from the official online text.
Attorney General’s Chambers · Article 917A ↗| The phrase | What it does |
|---|---|
| “For the time being” | The reference moves over time. It is not simply frozen at 1956 or independence. |
| “Law of England” | The legal source is England, not an undifferentiated collection of all laws in the United Kingdom. |
| “Mutatis mutandis” | Make the necessary adaptations for local application, within legal limits. |
| “Cause or reason” | Saint Lucia preserves its own conception of consideration. A gratuitous undertaking is not excluded merely for lacking an English bargain. |
| “Express provisions … shall prevail” | Local statutory conflict can block the imported rule. Foreign recency does not create supremacy. |
What the court established
Hilaire settled reception and validity. It did not settle every future case.
In Hilaire v Chastanet [2023] UKPC 22, the Privy Council considered the role of English defamation legislation in a Saint Lucian claim. It held that Article 917A can receive later English statutes, as well as English common law, and that the challenged mechanism was constitutionally valid.
The judgment examined particular provisions of England’s Defamation Act 2013 and their relationship to local law. A court does not stop at the words “English statute.” It must work through the specific rules, their local fit in a legal sense and the relevant conflict objections.
Saint Lucian law supplies the authority for reception. Parliament in Saint Lucia can repeal or amend that authority. That is why “Britain still has legislative sovereignty” is a poor description of the holding.
Read the judgment, especially paragraphs 13–32, 34–46 and 54–69 ↗Established by the decision
- The reference is capable of moving with English law.
- Relevant English statutes are not excluded merely because they were enacted after independence.
- The clause’s local exclusions, statutory priority and adaptation requirements remain important.
- The constitutional challenge before the Board failed.
Not established by the decision
- That every English Act, section or delegated rule applies.
- That every later English rule can defeat an accrued right.
- That every timing issue on appeal or retrial is resolved.
- That the mechanism is the best policy for Saint Lucia.
Six checks before calling an English rule local law.
1. Identify the legal issue
Does the particular rule concern contract, quasi-contract or tort? Classify the issue, not just the business or the title of an Act. An insurance dispute, for example, can involve a general contract issue and a special statutory regime.
2. Establish the English source and version
What precise provision or judicial rule is relied on? Hilaire selects relevant English common law and Acts in force in England when the matter is tried. This source-selection rule does not settle every retroactivity question. A statutory title is not proof that all its sections or delegated instruments apply in Saint Lucia.
3. Apply the express exclusions
English consideration is excluded. Cause, lawful gratuitous obligations and existing third-person rights remain. Proof of obligations and specific contracts have their own protections under paragraph (2).
4. Test local statutory conflict
If the English rule conflicts with an express provision of the Code or another Saint Lucian statute, the local provision prevails. A later foreign statute does not win simply because it is newer.
5. Make legally necessary adaptations
Mutatis mutandis means the necessary changes must be made for local application. It does not give a court an unrestricted power to replace a foreign policy with whatever policy it prefers.
6. Resolve time and the actual dispute
Identify the transaction, conduct, claim and relevant source dates, together with any accrued-rights protection. Then apply the resulting law to proven facts, within the court’s authority.
This is an explanatory sequence, not a substitute for issue-specific legal analysis. The legal authority comes from the Code and the cases, not from this checklist.
A subject can contain several different sources of law.
A builder’s contract can engage general obligations, the Code’s specific construction articles, the Consumer Protection Act, proof rules and prescription. Article 917A does not flatten those into one English rulebook.
The same is true in tort. In Mathurin v Augustin, the local succession provision in Article 609 mattered to an estate’s damages claim. The relevant English restriction did not prevail over that express local rule. This is a real example of the conflict rule doing work.
In Pigeon Island Development Company Ltd v The Landings Unit Plan No D2/2007 and another, the court’s treatment of a gratuitous undertaking illustrates another boundary: English consideration is not the local test. The absence of an English-style exchange does not end the analysis.
Four dates can matter in one dispute.
The transaction and event
When was the agreement made? When did the injury, publication, payment or failure occur? Those dates may determine the applicable duties and accrued interests.
The source and proceeding
Which version of the English source is selected? When does the trial, appeal or retrial occur? Source selection and retroactive effect are separate questions.
Research finding
A freeze is a latest-source-date limit, not a universal answer to retroactivity. The proposed bill would cap future source selection while preserving earlier-version protections where the existing temporal rules require them. Those transition clauses are proposed policy choices, not additional holdings in Hilaire.