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.
The new Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Bill 2017 (Qld) was assented to on 10 November 2017, which will see the introduction of project bank accounts (PBAs) into the Queensland construction industry. As the project bank account provisions will be trialled from 1 January 2018, contractors, at least those involved in State Government projects, should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions.
What Are Project Bank Accounts?
A PBA is a trust over:
The Queensland Supreme Court in the case of Scott & Ors v Port Hinchinbrook Services Limited & Ors [2017] QSC 92 has again confirmed the utility of a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) in respect of director appointments and members’ rights as part of a restructure.
Issues
The Court was asked to consider the following issues:
A PRETTY UNATTRACTIVE OUTCOME
Craig Wilkins*
Introduction
Today the Queensland Supreme Court held that an insolvent company’s environmental obligations under State law were unaffected by the liquidators’ disclaimer of related property and resource tenures. This decision changes the previous understanding of liquidators’ powers and the order of priority in which claims will be paid in a liquidation, and may have broader implications for insolvent companies that are subject to obligations under State laws.
Today the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that the liquidators of an insolvent company are ‘executive officers’ of that company under Queensland’s environmental laws, which means that the liquidators are required to use available funds to cause the company to comply with its environmental obligations under an environmental protection order issued to Linc.
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.
The Supreme Court of Queensland has delivered a significant judgement concerning the obligations of liquidators to cause an insolvent company to incur the costs of complying with State environmental laws, in priority to other unsecured creditors.
On instructions from the liquidators of Linc (Stephen Longley, Grant Sparks and Martin Ford of PPB Advisory) JWS made an application for directions in respect of both the liquidators’ and Linc’s environmental obligations in Queensland.
On 17 March, in Hambleton v Finn [2017] QDC 61, McGill SC DCJ of the District Court of Queensland applied the section 553C(1) setoff under the Corporations Act 2001 to a liquidator’s insolvent trading claim against a director.
His Honour followed the earlier decision of the District Court of Queensland in Morton v Rexel Electrical Supplies Pty Ltd. In that case, the set-off provision was applied where the liquidator was seeking the recovery of unfair preference payments.