A heavy vehicle operator can lose work, revenue and customers when enforcement action stops its trucks. But if a regulator later lifts or withdraws a notice, does that mean the operator is entitled to compensation? Not automatically.
Former National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Director of Prosecutions Belinda Hughes has drawn attention to a little-discussed provision of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL): section 581. It allows a person to claim compensation in defined circumstances involving the exercise, or purported exercise, of an authorised officer’s powers.
What the law actually says
Section 581 permits a claim against the Regulator for costs, damage or loss caused by the exercise of a power by or for an authorised officer. That includes loss associated with complying with a requirement under the enforcement chapter.
But there is a critical condition. The loss must have been caused by an improper or unreasonable exercise of a power, or the use of unauthorised force. Costs or losses resulting from lawful seizure or forfeiture are excluded.
A claim can be made in a court with jurisdiction to recover the amount sought, or in relevant offence proceedings. The court may award compensation only if satisfied that it is just in the circumstances. It must consider any relevant offence committed by the claimant.
In plain English: suffering a financial loss is not enough. The circumstances of the officer’s action, the reason for the loss and the statutory requirements all matter.
Why Belinda Hughes raised it
Hughes, now principal lawyer at Hughes Law, raised the provision during a WWTG interview about prohibition powers and the consequences of grounding transport operations.
“If you can establish that you incurred cost, damage or loss because of the exercise of a power of an authorised officer, and that power was improper or unreasonable, then you can claim for compensation.”
Asked whether she knew of comparable cases testing the provision, Hughes said: “Not that I’m aware, but I can foresee it coming, Chris.” That is her assessment, not evidence that a particular claim has succeeded.
Does lifting a prohibition notice prove the regulator was wrong?
No. A notice may be lifted because the identified risk has been addressed or a remediation pathway has been agreed. Its removal does not, by itself, establish that the original decision was improper or unreasonable.
The same distinction applies to business losses. Cancelled contracts, idle vehicles or other costs may be substantial, but the operator would still need to establish the statutory basis for compensation and the connection between the exercise of power and the claimed loss.
Another safeguard: minimising damage
Section 578 requires an authorised officer exercising a power under the HVNL to use reasonable diligence to cause as little inconvenience and do as little damage as possible. However, the section expressly says it does not create a separate statutory right to compensation beyond the compensation division.
Hughes has questioned whether less disruptive enforcement tools, including improvement notices, receive sufficient consideration where circumstances allow. That does not mean a regulator must use a lesser tool when an immediate or imminent serious safety risk requires intervention.
What the NHVR says
In its general response to WWTG, the NHVR said prohibition notices are exceptionally rare and reserved for circumstances involving an immediate or imminent risk of death or serious harm. It describes them as remedial rather than punitive, and says its approach includes engagement, education and lower-level intervention where appropriate.
The regulator also said authorised officers exercise their powers in accordance with the HVNL, including the section 578 duty to minimise inconvenience and damage.
WWTG separately asked the NHVR whether it had a response, published guidance or decided cases relevant to compensation under section 581. The regulator pointed to the provision itself and did not identify a decided case in that response. Its comments were general, not about any particular operator or prohibition notice.
What should an operator take from this?
The practical starting point is to distinguish three questions: What power was exercised? Was the way it was exercised improper or unreasonable? What loss did that action cause? Records of notices, communications, operating restrictions and financial consequences may be important if an operator seeks legal advice.
Section 581 is a possible legal avenue, not an automatic payout or a finding that any specific enforcement action was unlawful. The balance matters: regulators must be able to intervene against serious safety risks, while the law also provides safeguards when powers are exercised improperly or unreasonably.
Primary sources
- Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland), sections 578 and 581 (current legislation)
- WWTG interview with Belinda Hughes, former NHVR Director of Prosecutions
- NHVR written responses to WWTG, 23 September and 7 October 2026