There is a lot in whether a heavy vehicle is registered to an individual or a corporate entity.
Depending on which, it can drastically change your penalty exposure under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL). This article explains exactly how the law works and why it matters.
The legal framework: Penalty multipliers for corporations
Not easily found at the back of the HVNL, section 596 HVNL exists. It is the key provision that allows courts to impose higher penalties against a corporation. Under Section 596(3), the “maximum court-imposed penalty” for a corporation may be up to five times the penalty that would apply to an individual for the same offence.
The rationale is that corporations typically have greater resources and capacity to absorb compliance costs. Unfortunately this doesn’t take into consideration the smaller mum and dad companies.
What it means in practice?
As an example: The exact same offence committed by a driver could have a maximum penalty of $20,000 but where the company is charged they have a maximum penalty of $100,000.
Case brief: De Paoli Transport
Here’s why the fine jumped from $15,000 to $180,000
The Facts: De Paoli Transport ran a fleet of 32 fatigue-regulated trucks moving freight between NSW, Queensland and Victoria. The director, George De Paoli, and an employee, Jonathon De Paoli, acted as schedulers.
Over almost two years (2019–2021), the company failed to have proper systems for:
• Managing fatigue and driver work/rest hours.
• Ensuring drivers were trained in logbook use and fatigue awareness.
• Monitoring speed compliance and scheduling practices.
Drivers were largely left without structured oversight. Instructions were given verbally, with little documentation or follow-up. The company, director and employee all pleaded guilty under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL):
• The company to a Category 2 primary duty breach (risk of death/serious injury).
• The schedulers to Category 3 breaches (lesser, but still serious).
The appeal: The Local Court originally fined the company just $15,000 (and smaller fines for the individuals). The NHVR with Transport for NSW appealed, arguing the penalties were far too low. The NSW Supreme Court agreed. It found the original penalties “manifestly inadequate.”
Why the fine increased
Justice Cavanagh increased the company’s fine to $180,000 because:
• Risk, not luck: The absence of a crash was due to good fortune, not good systems. Sentences must reflect the danger posed, not whether harm occurred.
• Systemic failings. There were no proper fatigue, training or monitoring systems in place. This was not a one-off slip, but long-running, company-wide neglect.
• Deterrence. Penalties must be large enough to deter operators across the industry from cutting corners on safety.
• Scale of operations. Running 32 trucks over multiple states meant the risks were amplified. A token fine did not reflect the company’s size or the seriousness of the breach.
The director and employee schedulers each had their fines increased to $15,000.
Lessons for operators
• Safety systems must be real. Written manuals or verbal directions may not be enough. Courts expect training, audits, and proper oversight.
• Risk matters. You don’t need a crash for penalties to be severe. The law punishes the risk of harm, not just the harm itself.
When your vehicle is registered in a company name, you’re playing at a different level of risk.
Don’t underestimate the multiplier effect.
This article provides general guidance only and is not intended to cover every circumstance or provide specific legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts and operators should seek independent legal advice before relying on a statutory defence. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Belinda Hughes is Director and Principal Lawyer at Hughes Law.
The post Why your fine might be five times higher for the same offence appeared first on Big Rigs.