Reasonable Excuse Under the HVNL: A Guide to the legal Defence for Transport Operators
The following is not intended to be used as substitute for legal advice. If you or your company have been charged with an offence you early advice is critical. Contact Eric Navea Legal for experience and in-depth knowledge of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.
In the Heavy Vehicle National Law there is a suite of discrete offences relating to the use of a heayv 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. In 2018, the sections were amended to provide that a person is guilty of a 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 Giannopoulos Case
The first time the Legal Defence of Reasonable Excuse was considered was in the case of National Heavy Vehicle Regulator v Giannopoulos [1]. 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 Transport 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 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, you’re still liable.
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 default, 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.
A New Case in NSW[2]
The Nutshell
On 11 June 2025, a truck and trailer combination was intercepted at Pine Creek HVSS. near Coffs Harbour NSW. The width of the trailer was measured at 2.7m (allowed width was 2.5m). The operator was charged with permitting another to drive a Heavy Vehicle that was not compliant with dimension requirements. The Matter was heard by Coffs Harbour Local Court on 28 November 2025.
The Strategy
The Defence Strategy was two fold:
First it challenged the manner in which NHVR officers had measure the width of the trailer.
Secondly, if the width had been accurately measured, the Court would dismiss the charge on the basis that the company had a reasonable excuse defence.
The Court found the offence proven and rejected the company’s reasonable excuse defence. the company was convicted and fined $3000.00.
On the issue of reasonable excuse the company provide the court with extensive policy, procedure documents as well as the materials used to train the company’s drivers. The Local Court Magistrate considered that the very issue was reasonably foreseeable. On scrutinizing the company’s documents the court held the driver pre-start checklist did not direct drivers to check width and training materials to drivers only made general statements for drivers to comply with the HVNL but did not provide any specific training or guidance. The Court held that the company did not have a process of routine refresher training.
Key Lesson
Raising the defence of Reasonable Excuse is not a simple matter. Whether a defendant’s excuse is reasonable will be assessed against the HVNL’s paramount objective of promoting 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 offences. 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.
If you or your company have been charged offence under the HVNL and would like to consult with us about reasonable excuse contact us for peace of mind.
[1] [2023] SASC 101
[2] https://www.nhvr.gov.au/law-policies/prosecutions/court-outcomes. NHVR case reference 62012.
