Company AS 64295: fined $13,500, mass, 3 September 2026

Party

Party

Company AS 64295. The NHVR publishes court outcomes without the defendant's name.

Type

Company

Role

Role not stated

Reference

AS 64295

The proceeding

Decision

Convicted

Court

Fairfield Local Court (Local or Magistrates)

Jurisdiction

New South Wales

Hearing date

3 September 2026

Law

Heavy Vehicle National Law

Provisions

s 96(1)(c)

Offence

Mass

Charges

1

Facts

The Accused was the registered operator of a Scania prime mover and, on 15 October 2025, permitted another person to drive the vehicle. The prescribed axle mass limit applicable to the third axle group was 20 tonnes. The assessed mass of the third axle group was 24 tonnes, being 120% of the maximum permitted mass, constituting a severe risk breach. The defendant's legal representative appeared and entered a plea of guilty on behalf of the Company. The Company operates 20 registered vehicles and employs 20 staff members. It has recently appointed dedicated personnel responsible for compliance with the Heavy Vehicle National Law and has implemented a Heavy Vehicle Management Plan, with compliance procedures administered through Loadmaster. The defendant has also implemented a mass management system to address the compliance issues identified and acknowledged its prior convictions. The last penalty imposed on the Company was approximately six years ago. Two of the previous convictions were recorded in the defendant's absence, as it was unaware of the relevant court proceedings at the time. In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court had regard to the maximum penalties available and the matters set out in s 594 of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.

As reported by NHVR.

Penalty

Fine

$13,500

Fines under s 96(1)(c) on the register: $750 to $60,000, median $10,000 across 85 matters.

Orders

• Supervisory intervention order, 12 months

Prior history

The source states a prior history.

Educational point

Operators of heavy vehicles cannot avoid liability unless the requirement set out in with s639 of the HVNL is satisfied. The Court will not generally support a finding of leniency where the defendant has a previous conviction for a similar offence under the HVNL.

As reported by NHVR.

Comparable actions

Sources

• NHVR: Court outcomes (read 14 October 2026)