31
Committee should be requested to reconsider generally the age restrictions
on company directors as contained in section 157C of the Companies
Ordinance (Cap. 32).
6.4
Some Members of the Standing Committee questioned whether
there was any need for a minimum age limit at all. They noted that
there was none in the British Companies Legislation.
The incident
quoted in the Companies Law Revision Committee's Second Report had
obviously not been thought serious enough by the British authorities
to require legislation. These Members thought that there might be
This
some argument for a minimum age limit for directors of public
companies but could not see any at all for such a limit in respect
of private family companies. Why shouldn't the owners of family
companies be able to appoint their children as directors?
could be very useful in these days when the deaths of both husband
and wife in a common accident are, unfortunately, not uncommon. In
such circumstances, the surviving children who were directors could
continue the management of the family company with a minimum of legal
complications.
6.5
It was also pointed out that infant children can be members
of a partnership. It was accepted, however, that this can, and does in
practice, cause problems, resulting in a good deal of case law on the
subject.
6.6
Members who supported the provisions of Section 157C thought
that it was preferable that very young children could not be appointed as
company directors. They considered that the need for continuity in the
case of common accidents could be met efficiently by the appointment of
corporate directors. They also pointed out that there had been no
objections to the proposed Section 157C when it was included in the
132