Environment Protection Act 1993

If—

a body corporate has been issued with a site contamination assessment order or a site remediation order in respect of a site, or grounds exist for the issuing of any such order to a body corporate; and

there is reason to believe that the body corporate is being or has been wound up, stripped of assets or subjected to other action as part of a scheme—

to avoid meeting its obligations under or in connection with a site contamination assessment order or a site remediation order in respect of the site; or

to avoid its being issued with such an order, the Environment, Resources and Development Court may, on application by the Authority, make an order that a person who was, during the period in which it appears to the Court that the scheme was principally devised, a director or otherwise concerned in the management of the body corporate, or of a holding company of the body corporate, is an appropriate person to be issued with a site contamination assessment order or a site remediation order, or both, in respect of the site.

Without limiting the effect of subsection (1), there will be reason for such a belief—

if—

the body corporate is being or has been wound up; and

the body corporate has carried out 1 or more transactions—

such as to give the liquidator of the body corporate a right to recover cash under section 567 of the Corporations Act 2001 of the

rendered voidable by section 588FE of the

by which the body corporate incurred a debt in relation to which a person contravened section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 of the

there was, at the time or times when the body corporate entered those transactions or a substantial portion of them, reason to believe that site contamination may exist at the site; or

if—

a holding company of the body corporate has contravened section

there was, at the time of the contravention, reason to believe that site contamination may exist at the site; or

if—

the site has been transferred to a related body corporate (the

a reasonable person could have anticipated that the transferee would be unable to pay its debts if it took steps to remediate the site (to the extent that a reasonable person would have expected would be necessary);

there was, at the time of the transfer or when the body corporate entered the transactions for the transfer, or a substantial portion of them, reason to believe that site contamination may exist at the site.

The Court must not make an order under this section if the person against whom the order would be made satisfies the Court that—

the person had no knowledge, actual, imputed or constructive, of the scheme or any element of the scheme; or

the person was not in a position to influence the conduct of the body corporate in relation to that scheme; or

the person, if in such a position, used all due diligence to prevent the pursuit of the scheme by the body corporate.

The Court may make an order under this section despite the fact that the body corporate took steps to remediate the site.