7
28
7 the Treasury wrote to the Board of Trade (Treamry reference
12074/83) stating that the promtere had been in communication
with Sir H. Thring and that amendments of the Bill had been
agreed to between them and him.
Section 35 (1) of the Hongkong Ordinance No. 58
of 1911 followed generally the precedent of the Imperial Act.
but made the permission to keep a branch register conditional
upon a licence being obtained, and further made it a condition
of the grant of euch a licence that the Registrar migt be satis-
fied that a principal part of the business of the company was
carried on at or near the place where it desired to keep such
a branch regiater.
In 1910 the Honkong Ordinance was amended and the
China Companies Order-in-Council 1915 wee made, with the results
set out in the Crown Advocate's minute of the 27th April, 1928.
The question raised by the Petition appears to the
Board of Trade to be a metter primarily for the agcision of the
Hongkong Covernment. the board are not aware of the reasona
which led to the enactment of the straita settlements Ordinance
Bo. 155 in a form which enables loual companies to keep branch
replet are in the Jnited Kingdom or in any Colony irrespective
of whether business la carried on in the United Kingdom or in
that Colony, as the came my be.
Similar provisions, however,
occur in other statutos, e.g. the New Sealand Companies Act, 1906,
the Indian Companies Act, 1913, the Victoria Companies Act, 1911,
and ot here.
hile the uestion whether the transaction of business
on the spot should or should not be cade a condition precedent
to the opening of a local branch rogiater appears to ba
primarily a question for the Government of that part of the Empire
in which the company is incorporated, I am to point out that so
far as His Majesty's Government are concerned there would appear
to be no objection to, but on the other hand there are certain
/argument s
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.