Company AS 64079: fined $25,000, vehicle standards, 9 March 2026

Party

Party

Company AS 64079. The NHVR publishes court outcomes without the defendant's name.

Type

Company

Role

Role not stated

Reference

AS 64079

The proceeding

Decision

Convicted

Court

Downing Centre Local Court (Local or Magistrates)

Jurisdiction

New South Wales

Hearing date

9 March 2026

Law

Heavy Vehicle National Law

Provisions

s 89(1), s 60(1)(a)

Offence

Vehicle standards

Facts

On 2 October 2025 a Kenworth bulk carrier/hopper heavy vehicle registered to the accused entered the Lismore Heavy Vehicle Inspection Site for its annual inspection for roadworthiness. Charge one for the company was permitting the use of unsafe heavy vehicle on a road. Section 89(2) of the HVNL provides that a heavy vehicle is unsafe if the condition of the vehicle, or any of its components or equipment makes the use of the vehicle unsafe or endangers public safety. A mechanical inspection by NHVR officers revealed multiple serious safety defects on the braking and suspension systems which resulted in the vehicle being towed from the site. Charge two the accused was charged under section 60(1)(a) of the Heavy Vehicle National Law for permitting the use of a heavy vehicle on a road, in contravention of a heavy vehicle standard applying to the vehicle. Section 84(2) of the Heavy Vehicle (Vehicle Standards) National Regulation (VS Regulation) requires each component of the braking system of a heavy vehicle to comply with the performance requirements of the relevant Australian Standard. Part 6 of the Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rules 35/07 – Commercial Vehicle Brake Systems) 2022 sets out the performance requirements that a heavy vehicle must be capable of meeting. An inspection of the heavy vehicle revealed multiple serious safety defects on the braking system, which failed to meet the performance requirements of the relevant Australian Standard. Their Honour note the heavy vehicle was grossly unsafe and fortunately no one was harmed. The offending was above mid-range given the number of defects, the significant nature of the defects and the danger posed to the public. Inaccuracies were noted in the affidavit of the site manager. The principle of totality was considered and applied. Heavy vehicle rules are of utmost importance for community safety and all road users. The need for general deterrence cannot be understated. It is hard to accept that there was a pre-inspection conducted. The heavy vehicle was unsafe in a range of significant ways.

As reported by NHVR.

Penalty

Fine

$25,000

Fines under s 89(1) on the register: $5,000 to $70,000, median $21,000 across 4 matters.

Educational point

Operators must have regard to the conditions under which the heavy vehicle is operated. For example a heavy vehicle regularly operating on unsealed dirt roads will have higher maintenance requirements than a heavy vehicle doing highway driving. Regular maintenance requires more than merely taking a heavy vehicle into an accredited mechanic for repair when breakdowns occur. Regular servicings are essential, including following the manufacturer’s recommended lubrication schedules, to ensure the heavy vehicle remains in a roadworthy condition. Operators should ensure that appropriate servicings are carried out at the relevant km interval, as recommended by the manufacturer of the heavy vehicle, i.e. “A” type, “B” type, “C” type and “X” type servicings. Operators should ensure not only that policies and procedures are in place, but that they are implemented by its drivers, eg daily pre-start mechanical and visual inspections of the vehicle, fault notification logs, etc and that these are actually overseen and acted upon by management.

As reported by NHVR.

Comparable actions

Sources

• NHVR: Court outcomes (read 14 October 2026)