ALIENS
ALIENS: whether foreign company is an alien
War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920 s 8(2)
The Acting Assistant Secretary to the Department of the Treasury has forwarded for advice the following memorandum:
- Messrs. Thynne and Macartney, Solicitors, have applied for the consent of the Treasurer under section 8(2) of the War Precautions Act Repeal Act to the issue of 500,000 £1 shares
in the Swift Australian Company Limited to ‘Compania Swift Internacional Sociedad Anomima Comercial.’
- The sub-section referred to reads as follows:
- Under the Alien Shareholders Regulations,
- I shall be glad of advice whether, under section 8(2) of the War Precautions Act Repeal Act, the consent in writing of the Treasurer is necessary to the acquisition by the ‘Compania Swift International Sociedad Anomima Comercial’ of shares in the Swift Australian Company Limited.
2. No alien shall, without the consent in writing of the Treasurer, acquire any share in any company incorporated in the Commonwealth.
‘Alien’ means any person who is not a British subject, and includes the wife of an alien.
I presume that the Compania Swift Internacional Sociedad Anomima Comercial is a foreign company, i.e., a company incorporated in a foreign country.
The question as to whether a foreign company is an alien does not appear to have been judicially decided.
The opinion has, however, been expressed that a company incorporated according to the law of a foreign country must be treated as a subject of that country, and that in the event of war with that country the company would be treated as an alien enemy (Driefontien Consolidated Gold Mines v. Janson (1900) 2 V.B. 339 at page 346).
In my opinion, the necessary implication from that opinion is that a company incorporated according to the law of a friendly foreign country is an alien friend.
I am, therefore, of opinion that the word ‘alien’ in subsection (2) of section 8 of the War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920–1923 includes a foreign company.
The question asked in paragraph 4 of the Acting Assistant Secretary’s memorandum should, therefore, be answered in the affirmative.
[Vol. 22, p. 121]