ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1997 - SECT 91P Director of body corporate that is wound up
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1997 - SECT 91P
Director of body corporate that is wound up(1) The Supreme Court may make an order under this section only if satisfied, on an application by the authority, that—
(a) the person was a director of, or a person concerned in the management of, the body corporate at the time when the assessment order or remediation order was made; and
(b) there is reason to believe that the body corporate was wound up as part of a scheme to avoid compliance with the assessment order or remediation order.
(2) The Supreme Court may order a person to comply with an assessment order or remediation order at the person's own expense if the person was a director of, or a person concerned in the management of, a body corporate that—
(a) has been wound up within 2 years before the court's order is made; and
(b) has failed to comply with the assessment order or remediation order.
(3) There is reason for belief of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) (b) if—
(a) the body corporate carried out 1 or more transactions—
(i) that were voidable because of the Corporations Act
, section 588FE; or
(ii) that were such that the liquidator of the body corporate had a right to recovery of cash under the Corporations Act
, section 567; or
(iii) by which the body corporate incurred a debt in relation to which a person contravened the Corporations Act
, section 588G; and
(b) there was (at the time or times when the body corporate entered those transactions or a substantial part of them) reason to believe that the land was contaminated; and
(c) if a regulation made for this section applies—the prescribed conditions are satisfied.
(4) The Supreme Court must not make an order under this section if the person against whom the order would be made satisfies the court that—
(a) the person exercised due diligence to prevent the body corporate from avoiding compliance with the assessment order or remediation order; or
(b) the person could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of a scheme to avoid compliance with the assessment order or remediation order; or
(c) the person was not in a position to influence the conduct of the body corporate in relation to that scheme.
(5) The fact that the relevant assessment order or remediation order was partially complied with by the body corporate does not exclude the possibility that there is reason to form the belief mentioned in subsection (3).
(6) For this section, the fact that steps are taken to windup a body corporate before the authority makes an assessment order or remediation order in relation to the body corporate does not preclude the Supreme Court from finding that there is reason to believe that the body corporate was wound up as part of a scheme to avoid compliance with the order.