This question arose in Queensland recently in Linc Energy Ltd (in liq): Longley & Ors v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection.  The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing the company not to comply with an environmental protection order that required the company to maintain equipment that the liquidators had disclaimed.

The Queensland Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal by the liquidators of Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) (“Linc”) and given full effect to their disclaimer of contaminated mining property and onerous obligations the subject of an environmental protection order (“EPO”) issued by the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (“DES”).[1]

Liquidators have more certainty about their ability to disclaim the environmental liabilities and responsibilities of a company in liquidation.

Key Points: The High Court held there was no variation in the terms of the Charge and therefore no registration was required.

On 1 September 2010 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in Re Octaviar Ltd (No 7) [2009] QCA 282, unanimously dismissing the appeal in Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29.

The fixed and floating charge

This question arose in Queensland recently in Linc Energy Ltd (in liq): Longley & Ors v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection.  The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing the company not to comply with an environmental protection order that required the company to maintain equipment that the liquidators had disclaimed.

The Queensland Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed an appeal by the liquidators of Linc Energy Limited (Linc Energy), holding it was possible to use a disclaimer notice to avoid the consequences of an environmental protection order (EPO) issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EPA).

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.

Liquidators, administrators and receivers in Queensland are on notice that they may face serious personal consequences if they fail to cause companies to which they are appointed to comply with Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs).

Re Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) [2017] QSC 53 (13 April 2017) has determined that liquidators may not be able to escape obligations under an EPO by issuing a disclaimer notice.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in CGS Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 28 where it dismissed an application to restrain liquidators from engaging the same solicitors as a major creditor to conduct public examinations.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the recent ruling of the Queensland Supreme Court in Re Gulf Aboriginal Development Company Ltd[2021] QSC 310, where the Court dismissed an application to terminate the winding up of Gulf Aboriginal Development Company Limited (Gulf).

Key Takeaways