The short version
- Since 1 October 2018, a person is not guilty of a mass, dimension or loading (MDL) offence if they have a reasonable excuse.
- The HVNL doesn’t define reasonable excuse. It is assessed against the purpose of the law: heavy vehicle safety.
- In NHVR v Giannopoulos, the Supreme Court of South Australia overturned an acquittal based on reasonable excuse.
- Companies can’t rely on drivers alone to pick up unsafe loads.
- Systems, training and procedures must cover foreseeable risks, such as partial loads.
In this article
In the Heavy Vehicle National Law there is a suite of discrete offences relating to the use of a heavy vehicle which does not comply with mass, dimension and loading requirements under the National Regulations (MDL offence). They appear at sections 96, 102 and 111 of the HVNL. From 1 October 2018, the sections were amended to provide that a person is guilty of an MDL offence “unless the person has a reasonable excuse”. Sounds like a simple concept. Unfortunately, the HVNL did not define “reasonable excuse” nor does it set out what circumstances a court might consider before concluding that an excuse is reasonable.
The following is not intended to be used as a substitute for legal advice. If you or your company have been charged with an offence, early advice is critical. Contact Eric Navea Legal for experience and in-depth knowledge of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.
The Giannopoulos Case
A key case on the Legal Defence of Reasonable Excuse is National Heavy Vehicle Regulator v Giannopoulos Pty Ltd. The Case sent a strong reminder to the transport industry: safety systems must be watertight, and “reasonable excuse” is a very narrow defence under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL).
The Case Nutshell
In 2019, a Giannopoulos Pty Ltd driver was moving scrap car bodies in a tipper trailer. The company expected 5–6 cars, but only four were loaded. When the driver braked suddenly, one of the car bodies flew out and lodged between the truck and trailer.
The NHVR charged the company with breaching load restraint rules. At first instance, the Magistrates Court found the company not guilty, saying it had a reasonable excuse because it thought more cars would be loaded and relied on the driver to alert them if there was an issue.
The Appeal
The NHVR appealed—and won. The Supreme Court of South Australia overturned the acquittal, ruling that:
- Companies can’t rely on drivers alone to pick up unsafe situations.
- Training and policies must specifically cover different loading scenarios (like partial loads).
- If your systems don’t address foreseeable risks, a reasonable excuse defence is unlikely to succeed.
The case was sent back to the Magistrates Court for rehearing.
Key lesson
The HVNL puts responsibility not just on drivers, but also on companies. Even if a driver was at fault, but was acting in good faith, the operator can be held accountable if its systems fall short.
The reasonable excuse defence under the HVNL is extremely narrow. It is not enough for a company to argue that it didn’t know about an unsafe load or that the driver should have raised a concern. To succeed, operators must show they considered all foreseeable risks with its business operations and ensured that it had comprehensive systems, training, equipment and procedures that made it reasonable to expect safety requirements would be met—even in unusual circumstances.
Charged with a mass, dimension or loading offence?
Get advice early. Whether a reasonable excuse defence is open to you depends on your systems, training and records.
What Reasonable Excuse Means for Transport Operators
Raising the defence of Reasonable Excuse is not a simple matter. Whether a defendant’s excuse is reasonable will be assessed against the purpose of the provision, which is heavy vehicle safety. This assessment will result in a relatively high bar to reach.
Drivers and Operators should take time to consider all reasonably foreseeable scenarios that result in a risk to the safety, not just situations that might give rise to liability for an MDL offence. Company Policy and Procedure should address each risk with specific measures and this should be reflected in any induction, training and pre-start checks. Mere general statements to drivers to comply with the law may not be enough to give rise to the defence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a reasonable excuse under the HVNL?
Since 1 October 2018, a person is not guilty of a mass, dimension or loading offence under sections 96, 102 and 111 of the Heavy Vehicle National Law if they have a reasonable excuse. The HVNL does not define reasonable excuse, so it is assessed against the purpose of the law, which is heavy vehicle safety.
Can a company rely on its driver to spot an unsafe load?
Not on its own. In National Heavy Vehicle Regulator v Giannopoulos Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of South Australia found that companies can’t rely on drivers alone to pick up unsafe situations.
What does an operator need to show for a reasonable excuse defence?
That it considered all foreseeable risks in its operations and had comprehensive systems, training, equipment and procedures that made it reasonable to expect safety requirements would be met, even in unusual circumstances.
Is a general instruction to drivers to obey the law enough?
Probably not. Mere general statements to drivers to comply with the law may not be enough. Policies, induction, training and pre-start checks should address each specific risk.
Charged With an Offence Under the HVNL?
If you or your company have been charged with an offence under the HVNL and would like to consult with us about reasonable excuse, contact us for peace of mind. You can also read about our recent results for heavy vehicle operators.
Speak With Eric About Your MatterDisclaimer
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Your situation depends on your own facts, so speak with a lawyer if you or your company have been charged.
Sources
- National Heavy Vehicle Regulator v Giannopoulos Pty Ltd [2023] SASC 101 (Supreme Court of South Australia, 18 July 2023)
