clr/1988/1988_3_393.pdf

(1988)Counsel for the respondent raised the preliminary objection that the applicantshavenolegitimateinteresttopursuethisrecourseinviewofthe factthatthecompanywassubsequentlyregisteredandtherecoursehas,as aresultbeenabated. Asregardsthemeritsof therecoursecounsel for therespondentsubmilted that theword "printed" ins.II of theLaw mustbeconstrued to mean "printed in theusual andconventional methodof theprintingprocess"andthat thesubjudicedecision wasreasonably open totheRegistrar. 5 Held,annullingthesubjudicedecision:

(1)Thereisnodoubtthatlegiti- 10 mateinterestmustexistbothatthetimeofthefiling andatthetimeofthe hearingofarecourse.Since,however,theapplicantshavesustaineddamagethatisfinancial loss,(thecostofprintingthedocumentsintheconventionalway)becauseofthesubjudicedecision,whichstillcontinuestoexist,thisrecoursehasnotbeenabated. 15

(2)TheRegistrarhasnodiscretiontoacceptonemethodofprintingor another.Allhehastodoistosatisfy himselfthattheparticulardocument before him isactually "printed", nomatter by whatmethod. Itdoesnot havetobeprintedbya "conventional method"asputbyhim.Once itis printed,theRegistrarhasnodiscretiontoacceptorrejectit. 20

(3)TheCourthasnotbeensatisfied,thattherespondentcarriedathoroughinquiry intothematter,e.g.hedidnotconsultanexpertinWordProcessorSystems. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 25 Casesreferredto: Karapataldv.Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to register the company under the name of MorescoLtd. G. Mouaimisfor G. Cacoyannis, for the applicants. , 394 30 3 C.L.R. Cleanthous & Another v. Republic St.loannides {Mrs.},for therespondent. Cur,, adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Onthe25th January, 1983,theapplicantsapplied,throughtheiradvocates,to therespondentfortheregistrationofacompanyunderthename ofMorescoLtd.AstheMemorandumandArticlesofAssociation 5 of the company were prepared by means of a word processor system, therespondent refused toregister the company on the groundthattheArticlesofAssociationwerenot"printed". •Thedecisionoftherespondentwascommunicatedtotheapplicantsbyletter datedthe 1stFebruary,
2. Asaresult,thisre10 coursewasfiled,bywhichtheapplicantspraythatthedecisionof therespondentbedeclarednullandvoidandofnoeffect Counselfor therespondent raised thepreliminary objection that theapplicantshavenolegitimate interest topursuethisrecourseinviewofthefactthatthecompanywassubsequentlyreg15 isteredandtherecoursehas,asaresult,beenabated. Thisobjectionwasbasedonthefactthatonthe24thFebruary, 1983, the applicants applied again for registration of the same company, which wasregistered on the 2nd March, 1983, after submitting,thistime,copiesoftheMemorandumandArticlesof 20 Association which were printed in the conventional way in a printingoffice. -iBeforetheapplicantsappliedfortheregistrationoftheircompany,theiradvocateaddressedalettertotherespondent,whichis dated the 2ndAugust, 1982,bywhich heexplained in hisown 25 wordsthefunctions of awordprocessorsystemand;morespecifically, of the "WangWord Processor System 20",which he wasusinginhisoffice. Inhisview,theArticlesandMemoranda ofAssociationofCompaniespreparedonthatsystemwereactually "printed"andoughttobeacceptedbytheRegistrarassuch. 395 Demetriades J. Cleanthous & Another v. Republic

(1988)On the 31st August, counsel for the applicants addressed another letter to the respondent, attaching photocopies from the "Words andPhrasesLegally Defined" and "Black'sLawDictionary"astothemeaning of theword "printing". On the 12th January, 1983,the respondent addressed thefol- 5 lowing letter tocounsel for theapplicants (reference towhich is madeinthesubjudicedecision). "Re:Word Processor System

1. With reference to the above subject and the recent correspondence and discussions we had about the preparation of 10 Memoranda andArticlesofAssociationofCompanieswiththe above word processor system, I wish to inform you that having carefully considered thewhole system,Ihavecome tothe conclusion that thesystemisnot 'printing' withinthemeaning of theCompaniesLaw Cap.
2. 15
3. Consequently you arekindly requested to submit in future documents which are required to be printed under the Companies LawCap. 113,in the conventional printing process." Following thereceiptof theabovelettertheapplicantsapplied 20 for theregistration of theircompanyby submitting theMemoand Articles of Association which were prepared by means of the word processor system. As Ihave earlier said, theapplication of the applicants was turned down by the respondent by his letter dated the 1st February, 1983,and the applicants then filed the 25 present recourse. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the case, I feel that I must deal with the preliminary objection raised by therespondent towhichIhaveearlier referred. Counsel for theapplicants maintained that theapplicants have 30 sustained damage because theyhad toprint thedocuments again in theconventional wayand asaresult theypossessa legitimate 396 3 C.L.R. Cleanthous &Another v.Republic Demetriades J. interesttopursuethisrecoursetotheend. Thereisnodoubtthatlegitimateinterestmustexistbothatthe timeofthefilingandatthetimeofthehearingofarecourse.(See Karapatakiv.TheRepublic,

(1982)3C.L.R.88).Since,howev5 er,theapplicants have sustained damage,that isfinancial loss, becauseofthesubjudicedecision,whichstillcontinuestoexist, 1findthat thisrecourse hasnot been abated andthe applicants havealegitimateinteresttopursueittotheend.Thepreliminary pointis,therefore,dismissed. 10 Having found soIwillproceed toconsider themeritsof the case. ' ThepositionofcounselfortheapplicantsisthattheWordProcessorSystemconsistsofthreeseparatepartsoneofwhichisthe printerwhichactuallyprintsthedocumentspreparedontheother 15 partsofthesystem.Counselmaintainedthatthereisno difference intheresultsproducedbythismethodofprintingascomparedto any other method of printing known to the Registrar and submittedthattheword"printed"appearingins.11 Cap.113 should begivenitsordinary grammaticalmeaning.Counselfiled,asex20 hibits,thecorrespondence exchangedbetweenhisoffice andthe Registrar, theleaflets of themanufacturers of the "WangWord ProcessorSystem"whichexplainitsoperation,extractsfromvariousdictionariesastothemeaningoftheword"printing",acopy of theArticles andMemorandum of Association printedonthe 25 WangProcessorSystem,andacopyofthesamedocumentprinted in theconventional way which wasfinallyaccepted by the Registrar.Thishedidinordertoshowthatthereisno difference between thetwocopies.Counselfinallysubmitted that thelaw doesnotgivetheRegistraranydiscretiontochoosethemethodof 30 printingandthatthesubjudicedecisionisnotdulyreasoned. Counsel for the respondent argued that the Registrar has reachedthesubjudicedecisionproperlyafterconsideringallaspectsofthecaseandobtainingexpertandtechnical information aboutthesystemwhichhealsovisitedandinspectedatthe office 397 Demetriades J. Cleanthous & Another v. Republic

(1988)of applicants'counsel. Shesubmitted that theword "printed"in s.l1 of theLawmustbeconstruedtomean "printedintheusual andconventionalmethodoftheprintingprocess"andthatthesub judicedecisionwasreasonablyopentotheRegistrar. Evidencewasadducedonbothsidesinordertoestablishtheir 5 position. The Court then visited, in thepresence of counselon bothsides,therespondent Registrarandtherepresentativeofthe WangWordProcessor System,theGovernment Prinitng Office aswellastheOffices oftherepresentativeoftheWangSystemin order to watch ademonstration of theoperation of theprinting 10 machinesandtheWangSystem. Thewitness,whogaveevidenceonbehalfoftheapplicantsis Mr. NicosPaschalis, therepresentative in Cyprusof theWang System. Thiswitness explained themethodof operation of the WangSystemandcompareditwiththeprintingmachinesofthe 15 Government PrintingOffice, statingthattheWangSystemdoes thesameworkbutmorespeedily.Healsoexplainedthatthesystemiscomposedof threeparts,thefirstof which(thekeyboard) isusedforimputingthetext,theotherpart,whichisthemaster, editsthetextandthelastpart,whichistheprinter, printsthetext 20 preparedbytheothertwoparts. Counselfortherespondentcalledtwowitnesses,Mr.Chr.Orphanides,whoisaSupervisorintheGovernmentPrinting Office and Mr.T. Christodoulides,whoistheRegistrar of Companies andtherespondentinthepresentproceedings. Thefirstwitnessfortherespondenttestified astothemethods of printinginprinting offices inCyprus.Hesaidthatthree mef^hodsareused,namelytheletterpress,theoff setandthegravure methods and explained theprocedure and mechanism used in eachoneof them.The second witness,that istheRegistrar,ex- 30 plainedthestepshetookinordertoresolvetheissueandtheprocedurefollowed inhis office. 398 25 3 C.L.R. Cleanthous & Another v. Republic Demetriades J. Whatemanatesfromtheevidence,especiallythatofMr. Orphanidesincross-examination isthattheprintingprocessofthe wordprocessorhasallthecharacteristictsofeitheroneoranother systemof what therespondent described asbeing "theconven5 tionalmethods".Hefinallyadmitted thatifthesameinkandthe samepaperasthoseusedbyprintingoffices, areusedforprintingon aword processor, theresults will bethe same.If Ihave correctlyunderstoodtheevidenceofthiswitness,theonly differencebetweenprintingbymeansofawordprocessorandthecon10 ventionalmethodsisthatyoucannotprintphotographsandsimilarmaterialonaWordProcessorandthatyoudonothaveagreat varietyofcharacters(shapesandsizesofthem),unlessyouhave certainotherdevicesorsparepartsfixedonthemachine.Thewitnessalsoadmittedthatthereare,also,othermethodsofprinting 15 whicharenotusedinCyprusorintheGovernment Printing Office. TherespondentinhisevidencestatedthathevisitedtheGovernmentPrintingOffice andsoughttheopinionoftheofficers in charge^Healsovisitedtheoffices ofMessrs.Cacoyannis&Co. 20 thefirmofadvocatesactingfortheapplicants,andinspectedthe WangWordProcessor System used bythem.Hefinally stated that he was not satisfied as to thedurability of this "printing" method since it hasnot been tested through years.The permanenceanddurabilityoftheprint,however,isriotinissue.What 25 isinissueiswhethertheparticulartextwasprintedornot. Inmyview,astheLawstands,theRegistrarhasnodiscretion toacceptonemethodofprintingoranother.Allhehastodoisto satisfyhimselfthattheparticulardocumentbeforehimisactually "printed"ornot,nomatterbywhatmethod.Itdoesnothaveto 30 beprintedbya"conventionalmethod"asputbyhim.Onceitis printed,theRegistrarhasnodiscretiontoacceptorrejectit. Fromthematerialbeforeme,Iamnotsatisfiedthattherespondentcarriedathoroughinquiryintothematterbeforereachingthe subjudicedecision.Hedidnotforinstanceconsultanyexpertin 35, Word Processor Systems, buthe limited his inquiry in thisre- 399 Demetriades J. Cleanthous & Another v. Republic

(1988)spect tovisiting theoffices of Messrs.Cacoyannis & Co.andinspecting the system. AsIunderstand from theevidence, thematterissuchthateveryexpertevidenceavailableought tohavebeen sought bytheRegistrar beforereaching hisdecision, and theoffi5 cer of the Government Printing Office whom heconsulted cannot beconsidered asexpert inWordProcessors generally. Itdoes not,also,emanatefromthematerial before methat therespondent has made an adequate search astothelegal orordinary meaning of theterm. 10 In view of the above, I find that the respondent did not carry out a due inquiry intothe matter and as a result heexercised his discretion wrongly. In the result, this recourse succeeds and the subjudice decision ishereby annulled. 15 As to thecosts of theseproceedings, Ifindthat inview of the novelty of thecase,each party should bearitsowncosts. Subjudice decisionannulled. 400