CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 49

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