Rathmann v Singleton No. Scgrg-99-230 Judgment No. S165 - [1999] SASC 165

RATHMANN v SINGLETON

[1999] SASC 165

Magistrates Appeal

MARTIN J. (Ex tempore) This is an appeal against a dismissal by a magistrate of a complaint against the respondent that it was the owner of an overloaded vehicle driven on a road whilst its mass exceeded the maximum prescribed by the Road Traffic (Mass Limits) Regulations 1989, contrary to s146 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (the Act).
The vehicle was a prime mover with attached trailers and comprised what is commonly referred to as a road train and, more particularly, a double road train. The prime mover was registered under the Commonwealth Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 (the Commonwealth Act), while the trailers were registered under the South Australian Motor Vehicles Act 1959. It is common ground that by virtue of s3(2) of the Commonwealth Act, the entire vehicle, including the State-registered trailers, was a registered motor vehicle under the Commonwealth Act.
The respondent pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded by way of a short trial. Evidence was led by the prosecution from a road transport inspector that the total mass of the vehicle was 64.5 tonnes. One of the trailers did not have an inspection label and the other did not have a current label.
At the relevant time, the general mass limit in South Australia was 42.5 tonnes, but under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act road trains were exempted from that limit on certain conditions. The exemption and the conditions were gazetted on 16 January 1997. If the exemption had applied to the respondent’s vehicle, it would have been under the prescribed weight for a road train. However, s164B of the Act provides that if a person fails to comply with any of the exemption conditions, the exemption does not operate in that person’s favour. In that event, the lower limit of 42.5 tonnes applies.
Paragraph 3.3 of the exemption was a condition that all South Australian registered vehicle units in a road train shall be inspected and display a current inspection label. According to the evidence of the Road Traffic Act transport inspector, the respondent’s vehicle did not comply with that condition because one of the trailers did not have a label attached and the label attached to the other trailer was not current. The end result was that the limit of 42.5 tonnes applied and this vehicle was 64.5 tonnes.
At the conclusion of the evidence counsel for the respondents submitted there was no case to answer. On a discrete point of law the magistrate acceded to the submission and dismissed the complaint. In essence his Honour found that the relevant South Australian law did not apply to the vehicle as it was excluded by the operation of Commonwealth law which “covered the field” with respect to this particular vehicle. His Honour relied on s12A of the Commonwealth Act which is in the following terms:
“Notwithstanding any law of a State or Territory relating to mass limits, it is lawful, subject to this…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rathmann v Singleton No. Scgrg-99-230 Judgment No. S165 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] SASC 165
Decision Date: 20 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rathmann v Singleton, the South Australian Supreme Court addressed an appeal against the dismissal of a complaint regarding the respondent's ownership of an overloaded vehicle. The vehicle, a double road train, exceeded the prescribed mass limit of 42.5 tonnes, contravening the Road Traffic Act 1961. The appellant argued that the respondent was in breach of the Act, while the respondent contended that the Commonwealth Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 excluded the operation of the South Australian law in this context. The primary issue before the court was whether the Commonwealth Act was intended to exclude the application of the South Australian Road Traffic Act in relation to the mass limits of vehicles engaged in interstate trade.

The court examined the provisions of the Commonwealth Act, specifically section 12A, which allows for the lawful driving of a vehicle on a road under certain conditions. The court concluded that the Commonwealth Act was not intended to exclude the operation of State laws generally. Instead, section 12A excludes State laws relating to mass limits only in the circumstances specified. The court found that the magistrate erred in concluding that the Commonwealth Act covered the field regarding mass limits of vehicles registered under its legislation. The court held that if the respondent's vehicle was being driven on a road in South Australia in circumstances other than those set out in section 12A, the South Australian law relating to mass limits applied to that vehicle.

The court also considered the burden of proof regarding section 12A, ultimately deciding that the onus rests on the defendant to establish that the vehicle comes within section 12A and to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. However, the court did not need to decide this issue conclusively as the matter was remitted for further hearing. The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the magistrate for further hearing in accordance with the reasons provided. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, fixed at $150.00.

Orders