-
The costs of having an action brought against the entity;
-
Damages to those who have incurred loss as a result of the environmental harm;
-
Costs of the clean up or rehabilitation; and
-
Costs of any investigation.
Problems with the Current Law
The law currently only provides for the payment by the entity directly causing the environmental harm. It does not provide recourse against those otherwise indirectly associated with the activities causing the environmental harm such as landowners where a lessee or licencee on the land causes environmental harm.
This limited liability can result in similarly limited accountability for clean up costs if the offending business owner does not have the capacity to fund the clean up. In such cases the cost of remediating any environmental harm falls to the State.
Proposed Changes
The proposed changes seek to extend the scope for the State to recoup the costs of the clean up.
Responsibility would be extended to include “landowners who have derived – and will continue to derive – a commercial benefit from the land. Scope would also be made for notices to be issued to directors of companies or parent companies. Notices will also be able to be registered on the property title as a charge on the land until the clean up is completed satisfactorily”.
It is not intended that the changes be retrospective. The State has not at this stage indicated the width of who will be a landowner. For example, could it be so wide so as to include a mortgagee of the property? Watch this space.
Effect
These changes seek to broaden the scope of responsibility for payment of costs for the remediation of environmental harm. Scope will be made for entities other than those directly responsible for the environmental harm to be liable to the State for the clean up bill. These entities will include landowners who gain a commercial benefit from the land. The precise nature of this power is yet to be seen, however it does indicate the State’s willingness to hold those engaging in environmentally harmful activities more accountable. The changes are likely to be implemented in the coming months.
Whatever the effect of the changes, it is important that landowners allowing others to use their land, for example, under a lease or licence, ensure that they have an agreement in writing with the land user and that the agreement contains appropriate terms to protect the land owner against losses suffered as a result of the environmentally harmful activities undertaken by the land user.
Snapshot: Upcoming Changes to the Liquor Act
In recent years the Queensland Government has been looking to reform the Liquor Act 1992 (“the Liquor Act”). In recent months, the shape of these reforms has begun to emerge.
In April 2006 a Discussion Paper for review of the Liquor Act was issued by the State for public comment. From the public response, a report was prepared and in early 2008 the State issued a Regulatory Impact Statement/Draft Public Benefit Test (RIS/DPBT) which invited public comment on the report.
In response to the comments on the RIS/DPBT, the State issued certain proposals to amend the Liquor Act with the new legislation anticipated to come into force later this year. Stay tuned for further information on the nature of the amendments and their effect.
For further information on how these changes affect you, please contact Matthew Rollason, Partner or Keith Carl, Partner.
Please find a print friendly version of this newsletter update below.
