48
12000
Rece
Reaf 13 APR |
Further Memorandum of the Attorney General 5305
and Mr. Pollock K.C. end Fr. Alabester.
APR 1911
*
1. Manila Companies do not affect our position with
regard to Shanghai, and will be unaffected by the
suggested Order in Council. It was apparently decided
in 1907 that they should be allowed to register here.
See the A.G's minute of 8/11/10. It appears from the
Chief Justice's judgment that we cannot register them
unless we give ourselves express power to do so. This
can be done without difficulty if it is still desired to
have them. As has been pointed out (see p.2 of the
Chief Justice's minute of 17/11/10 attached to the file)
in the case of Manila Companies, the insufficient control
of the Hongkong Courts is compensated for by a more cr
less effective control by the Philippine Courts.
2.
As regards Shanghai Companies we venture to qubmit
that it would be waste of time to draft amendments to the
Companies Bill before some definite decision has been
given by the Home Authorities upon the principles et
issue and as to the powers which are to be conferred by
the Shanghai Order in Council.
We are merely contending for the application of the
broad general principle that each Court should exercise
ite own natural Jurisdiction, and that, inasmuch as the
Companies in question are registered in Hongkong, every
application affecting the register falls naturally within
the Jurisdiction of the Hongkong Court.
It is only quite recently that Mr. Rourne has decided
that the Shanghai Court has Jurisdiction to wind up A
Hongkong Company, and he is stated to have so decided
under section 268 of the Compentes Consolidation Act of
1908, on the ground that the company was not registered
within the meaning of Section 267 of that Act. It is
Vay
P! # ! h