• GL
Choose your location?
  • Global Global
  • Australia
  • France
  • Germany
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Poland
  • Qatar
  • Spain
  • UAE
  • UK

Magistrate records conviction in case of ‘complete indifference’ to legal obligations

21 August 2019
A South Australian magistrate has recorded a conviction against Bitumax Pty Ltd and fined the company $9,900 for failing to comply with statutory loading limits in March 2018. 
The truck was carrying a load of gravel which had not been weighed and there were no operating, calibrated scales on either the truck or loader for use by its operator. Instead, the loader had been instructed as to ‘how many’ buckets they were to place in the truck. This resulted in the load being 120% over the statutory limit. 

Magistrate Semmens concluded the loading and transport of the materials involved ‘pure guess work and speculation’ as to compliance with the correct loading amount. The Magistrate commented that not only did the gross overloading place the community at risk, but also the company’s own workers. 

The company’s breach was aggravated by the fact that requests had been made on three separate occasions for scales to be made available to the loader. The Magistrate concluded this was a case of wilful blindness that fell far short of good corporate governance. Mitigating factors included the company’s guilty plea and that following the event, the company went to great expense to review its procedures, including implementing training, education worksite meets and internal audits and ensuring all trucks and loaders were fitted with scales. It was found irrelevant that the truck used was a replacement vehicle and that there had been reliance on the manufacturers load limits. 

Ultimately, it was held that in such an extraordinary case of indifference to legal obligations the mitigating circumstances were not compelling and a conviction was recorded. 

This decision illustrates the increasing presence of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and the strict liability nature of offences under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL).  We expect to see more cases focussing in on the chain of responsibility requirements of the HVNL.

If you require further information or have any queries in relation to this legal update, please contact Matthew Smith or Andrew Ross.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Kate Archibald to this article.
 

Further Reading

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set when you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

Manage your cookies

Our use of cookies

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set when you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

Necessary cookies

(Required)

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

These cookies are required

Tracking cookies

Anonymous cookies that help us understand the performance of our website and how we can improve the website experience for our users. Some of these may be set by third parties we trust, such as Google Analytics.

They may also be used to personalise your experience on our website by remembering your preferences and settings.

Marketing cookies

These cookies are used to improve and personalise your experience with our brands. We may use these cookies to show adverts for our products, or measure the performance of our adverts.