Clayton’s Towing height breach on Bruce Hwy with maximum penalty of $66,550

Legislation that allegedly defines a towed load as “goods” even if it is an empty Kenworth could cost Clayton’s Towing tens of thousands of dollars after it breached the law for the first time in 55 years.

The tow truck company was before the court.

Legal arguments have erupted in the matter of a towing vehicle that exceeded the height limit when transporting a Kenworth truck, with a dispute over whether the circumstances constituted a severe breach or not.

Clayton’s Towing representative Troy Morris pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to comply with dimension requirements for heavy vehicles with goods or passengers on behalf of the company in Maryborough Magistrates Court this week.

National Heavy Vehicle Regulator representative Hayden Geddes told the court that on February 22, 2025, authorised officers had seen the Kenworth being towed by Clayton’s on the Bruce Highway at Maryborough.

The vehicle was stopped and inspected and the officers found the vehicle had a permitted height of 4.3m, but that the height of the Kenworth truck was 4.88m - it was too high by 55cm.

The driver at the scene said he was working for Clayton’s Towing and he had been sent to retrieve the rigid truck from the Bundaberg holding yard.

Mr Geddes said the driver had measured the height of the truck but believed he was allowed a height of 5m.

There were no exemptions that applied to the rigid truck, he said.

The maximum penalty that applied was $66,550, as the breach was classified as a “severe risk”.

He said it was classified as a severe risk breach because under the legislation and the position of the regulator, the vehicle under tow constituted “goods”, which put the offending in a more serious category.

But Clayton’s Towing disputed that interpretation of the legislation, saying it would only apply if the truck being towed was carrying something, but said the truck itself was not classified as “goods”.

Legal arguments have erupted in the matter of a towing vehicle that exceeded the height limit when transporting a Kenworth truck, with a dispute over whether the circumstances constituted a severe breach or not.

Magistrate John Milburn said Mr Geddes was saying the Kenworth truck was goods.

“That’s correct your honour,” he said.

In response, Clayton’s said the reason the Kenworth was not goods was because it “was a heavy vehicle”.

The company’s lawyer said his submission was that the legislation asked if the heavy vehicle had “goods or passengers in it”.

“The characterisation of the heavy vehicle is a critical element to your honour’s decision in my respectful submission,” he said.

The heavy vehicle according to the definition was both vehicles.

Mr Milburn said what the legal representative was suggesting was for him to look at the total rig for the purposes of compliance issues and the height of the vehicle was not contested.

“But it doesn’t have any goods or passengers in it,” he said.

“Precisely your honour,” the legal representative said.

Mr Milburn then asked what would be inferred if instead of a Kenworth, the tow truck was towing a house with nothing in it, opposed to a house with items in it.

“The house itself wouldn’t meet the definition of a heavy vehicle,” the representative said.

“Definitions are important in the characterisation of how this argument is presented.”

The definition of heavy vehicle was then looked up and read aloud to the court.

The legal representative said he was further arguing that when the truck was being towed, it became a “towed combination” and that was the heavy vehicle that had to be considered in the context of the legislation.

Mr Milburn asked if the tow truck had been towing a trailer of pineapples, they would be considered goods.

“Most definitely,” the legal representative said.

“There are no doubt policy reasons behind all this, because if the Kenworth for example is involved in an accident and all the pineapples spill, the public disruption on these roads would be significant,” he said.

“Without the pineapples … there’s much less of a disruption.

“I wasn’t involved in the policy considerations but that would be a single example to understand why the law might categorise a more severe breach in circumstances where there are goods or people involved.”

The legal representative said the outcome of the argument was relevant to whether it was determined to be a severe risk breach, particularly if Clayton’s Towing was ever brought back before the court, as opposed to a breach that was not a severe risk breach.

“My client has been in business for 55 years, this is the first time it is before this court on a breach of this nature,” he said, adding that their record was one they took very seriously.

Mr Milburn said he would adjourn the matter until September 29, asking for more written submissions.