Liquidators found liable to pay the EPA's costs of cleaning up contaminated land, despite disclaimer
EPA & Anor v Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors [2020] VSC 550
What you need to know
- Insolvency practitioners will have to carefully consider taking appointments over property that is potentially subject to environmental liabilities under Victorian law.
- Those indemnifying insolvency practitioners who take such appointments will have to be very careful about the scope of the indemnity – lest they be held liable under it.
- Disclaiming property may not be effective in relation to environmental liability risk.
- In some cases, liaising with the EPA prior to appointment may make sense.
- Whilst the EPA gave an undertaking that it would not pursue the liquidators personally beyond the indemnity in this case, such a concession does not apply by default.
Liquidators found liable for clean-up costs
The Victorian Supreme Court has found that the liquidators of a wood processing business (The Australian Saw Milling Company or TASCO) were liable to pay the Victorian Environment Protection Authority's (EPA) costs of remediating contamination on TASCO's land, despite the liquidators disclaiming the land.
This finding will send a shiver through the insolvency profession, and those appointing and indemnifying practitioners. It suggests that the costs of environmental liabilities will be put on indemnifying creditors. In this case, the EPA undertook to limit the liquidators' exposure to the extent that they enjoyed an indemnity from their appointors. However, such a concession does not apply by default. Practitioners will need to carefully consider taking appointments over land that is potentially subject to environmental liabilities.
Having said that, the facts of this case were of particular concern to the EPA, and it is very unlikely that a blanket pursuit of practitioners and their indemnifiers will occur as a matter of course.
The contaminated land, indemnity and disclaimer
TASCO leased land (Land) to C&D Recycling, who operated a materials recycling business. The Land became contaminated after it was used to store industrial waste such as concrete, asbestos, plastic, and tyres. C&D Recycling subsequently went into liquidation, and ceased to occupy the Land.
Liquidators were then appointed to TASCO by way of a creditors' voluntary winding up. At that time, the Land was TASCO's only asset. Dongwha Australia (an entity related to TASCO) granted the liquidators an indemnity for an unlimited amount in respect of environmental liabilities (including for the liquidators' costs and remuneration arising out of such liabilities) (Indemnity).
During the liquidation, the EPA exercised its statutory powers under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic) (EP Act) to enter the Land and remediate the contamination. The EPA has a right to recover remediation costs from the polluter or "occupier" of the land as a statutory debt.
The next day, the liquidators disclaimed TASCO's interest in the Land on the basis that the contamination made the Land unsaleable, and the costs of realising the Land would exceed any potential return. The disclaimer would effectively terminate the liquidators' obligations in respect of the Land, including any potential obligation to pay the EPA's remediation costs.
The EPA and the State of Victoria (the State) then brought an application to set aside the liquidators' disclaimer under s 568B(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). In the course of the proceedings, the EPA gave an undertaking to the Court that it would limit the liquidators' liability to the amount recovered by them under the Indemnity (Undertaking).
The six key issues
There were six key issues in the case. The Court's findings with respect to each are summarised in the table below.
Issue | Findings |
---|---|
The EPA may recover remediation costs as a statutory debt from parties who are "occupiers" of "premises" (e.g. the Land) under section 4(1) of the EP Act: section 62(2) EP Act. Are the liquidators "occupiers" of the Land? |
|
Did the liquidators cease to be "occupiers" of the Land when the EPA entered the Land and conducted remediation works? |
|
A liquidator does not have to incur post-liquidation expenses unless there is sufficient available property: section 545(1) Corporations Act. Does this section bar the EPA's claim for remediation costs if TASCO does not have sufficient available property? |
|
A person who has or claims to have an interest in disclaimed property has standing to apply to the Court to have the disclaimer set aside: section 568B(1) Corporations Act. Are the EPA and the State persons who have, or claim to have an interest in the Land? |
|
The Court can only set aside a disclaimer if it is satisfied that the disclaimer would cause prejudice to those with an interest in the property that is grossly out of proportion to the prejudice suffered by the creditors if the disclaimer was set aside: section 568B(3) Corporations Act. Would the EPA and the State be so prejudiced by the disclaimer? |
|
Even if standing and prejudice have been established, the Court has discretion on whether or not to set aside a disclaimer: section 568B(2) Corporations Act. Should the Court exercise its discretion to set aside the disclaimer? |
The Court exercised its discretion to set aside the disclaimer, taking into account the following factors:
|
Authors: Michael Sloan, Partner; Robert Jamieson, Partner; Jane Hall, Senior Associate; Daniel Dai, Lawyer
Key Contacts
We bring together lawyers of the highest calibre with the technical knowledge, industry experience and regional know-how to provide the incisive advice our clients need.
Keep up to date
Sign up to receive the latest legal developments, insights and news from Ashurst. By signing up, you agree to receive commercial messages from us. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Sign upThe information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.