Magistrates Court (Professional Engineers Infringement Notices) Regulation 2024

The central concept is the infringement notice, which is an instrument served on a person alleged to have committed one of the scheduled offences. The notice offers a choice: pay the fixed penalty within the time required under the Magistrates Court Act (usually 28 days) and the matter is resolved without a criminal record, or elect to have the matter heard by a court. The regulation does not re-state the payment period or the election procedure; those are contained in the Magistrates Court Act 1930 Part 3.8, and users must refer to that Act for the mechanics of time limits, late payment, withdrawal of notices, and the consequences of non-payment.

A reminder notice is a follow-up notice served if the initial infringement notice is not paid or elected within time. The cost of serving a reminder notice is set at $34 (s 8(3)), which is recoverable from the recipient if the matter proceeds.

An authorised person under the regulation is someone who can serve the notices. Section 12 defines “professional engineers officer” to include the professional engineers registrar, a deputy registrar, and a person appointed under s 48 of the Professional Engineers Act. The registrar is also the administering authority (s 6). The authorised person must identify themselves by full name or surname and initials, or by a unique number issued by the registrar (s 9). For companies, s 10 requires the ACN to appear on the notice. These content requirements are additional to those already required by s 121(1)(c) of the Magistrates Court Act.

The infringement notice penalty is a fixed dollar amount per offence, listed in Schedule 1, column 4. For an individual, the penalty is that dollar amount. For a corporation, the penalty is five times that amount (s 8(2)). This multiplier is a common feature in ACT infringement regimes but has a particularly large effect here because the base penalties are already low relative to maximum court penalties. For example, s 29(3) carries a maximum court penalty of 20 penalty units (for an individual, 20 x $160 = $3,200; for a corporation, 20 x $810 = $16,200). The infringement penalty for an individual is $220, or $1,100 for a corporation. The discount from the maximum is steep: the individual pays 6.9% of the maximum court penalty; the corporation pays 6.8%. This creates a strong incentive to pay the notice rather than contest it, regardless of guilt or innocence.

The dictionary imports definitions from the Magistrates Court Act and the Professional Engineers Act. “Professional engineers registrar” is defined by reference to the Professional Engineers Act dictionary. “Deputy professional engineers registrar” is similarly defined. The note in the dictionary also reminds that terms like “administering authority,” “authorised person,” “infringement notice,” “infringement notice offence,” and “reminder notice” derive their meaning from the Magistrates Court Act. Practitioners must therefore read both Acts together.

The regulation also imports the concept of a “penalty unit” from the Legislation Act 2001, but note that the infringement penalties in Schedule 1 are dollar amounts, not penalty units. The offence penalty column in Schedule 1 (column 3) shows penalty units, but those are the maximum court penalties, not the infringement amounts. This distinction is critical: the infringement penalty is a legislated discount below the maximum, not a simple multiple of penalty units.

The regulation directly affects individuals who are alleged to have committed one of the five scheduled offences under the Professional Engineers Act, and corporations that are alleged to have committed those same offences. The offences likely relate to unregistered practice, failure to comply with registration conditions, or breaches of duty by professional engineers (the text of the Professional Engineers Act is not reproduced, but the schedule references penalty units typical of regulatory offences).

The most obvious affected group is professional engineers practising in the ACT who must hold registration under the Professional Engineers Act. If they breach certain provisions, they can now receive an infringement notice rather than being summonsed directly to court. This may seem favourable because it avoids an immediate court appearance and the associated stigma and costs, but it also means the engineer must decide quickly whether to pay or contest. A decision to pay is recorded only administratively and does not constitute a conviction, but the payment is an admission of liability for the purposes of the infringement scheme. Engineers who are innocent may feel pressured to pay because the penalty is low relative to the cost of legal representation or the time needed to elect court.

Corporations that employ engineers or engage in engineering work in the ACT are also affected. The 5x multiplier means a corporation will pay substantially more than an individual for the same offence, but the absolute amounts are still modest (e.g., $1,100 for s 29(3)). For large engineering firms with annual revenues in the millions, that amount may be trivial. The deterrent effect for corporations is therefore questionable. The regulation may inadvertently encourage large firms to treat infringement notices as a routine cost of doing business, particularly if the underlying conduct is hard to detect or the probability of being caught is low.

The professional engineers registrar and their staff are directly affected as the administering authority and authorised officers. They must issue notices that comply with the content requirements of sections 9 to 11, maintain a list of unique identification numbers, and manage the payment and election process. The registrar also has the discretion to decide whether to issue an infringement notice or to prosecute the matter directly, since the regulation does not remove the option of full prosecution. This discretion introduces a risk of inconsistent enforcement if similar conduct is treated differently by different officers.

The ACT Magistrates Court is indirectly affected: fewer prosecutions for these five offences will be initiated, but some recipients will elect to have their matter heard by a court, and the court will then deal with the case under ordinary criminal procedure. The regulation may shift the mix of work from summary prosecutions to infringement notice administration, but the net effect on court workload is unclear.

Finally, legal and compliance professionals advising engineers and engineering firms must now understand this regulation in addition to the Professional Engineers Act. The low penalties and the ability to pay without admission (technically no admission, but the effect is the same) may change the risk calculus for clients. The regulation effectively creates a safe harbour for minor breaches: pay the amount and move on. But that same dynamic reduces the number of cases that generate precedent, potentially leaving the boundaries of the underlying offences unclear for longer.

The regulation does not create substantive duties; those are in the Professional Engineers Act. However, it imposes procedural duties on authorised persons and creates a right for the recipient to choose between payment and court election.

An authorised person who serves an infringement notice must comply with the identification requirements in s 9: the notice must show their full name (or surname and initials) or a unique number assigned by the registrar. For a reminder notice, the same requirement applies under s 11. This ensures the recipient knows who issued the notice and can verify that person is authorised. If a notice fails to comply with these requirements, it may be invalid. The administering authority (the registrar) must keep a register of unique numbers and ensure that any number used is traceable to a specific officer.

When serving an infringement notice on a company, the notice must include the company’s ACN (s 10). This is additional to the general content requirements in s 121(1)(c) of the Magistrates Court Act, which already require the offence, penalty, and other information. Failure to include the ACN could be a procedural defect that invalidates the notice, though the regulation does not expressly state that consequence. A court might still find the notice defective and dismiss the matter if the recipient elects court.

The recipient of an infringement notice has the right to pay the penalty within the time specified in the Magistrates Court Act (generally 28 days from service). Paying discharges any liability for the offence and avoids prosecution. The payment is not an admission of guilt for any other purpose. Alternatively, the recipient may elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. The regulation does not specify how to make that election; the procedures in the Magistrates Court Act Part 3.8 govern. Once an election is made, the matter proceeds as a normal prosecution, and the court will determine guilt or innocence. The recipient then may be liable for the maximum court penalty (which is higher) plus costs.

The regulation does not confer any right to negotiate the penalty amount or to request an extension of time to pay. The penalty is fixed. However, the administering authority may withdraw an infringement notice under the Magistrates Court Act if new information shows the recipient did not commit the offence. That discretion remains.

For corporations, the 5x multiplier is a duty to pay the higher amount if they receive a notice and choose to pay. But there is no duty to accept the notice; the corporation can always elect court and argue the case. The regulation does not impose any obligation on the recipient to respond if they choose to ignore the notice; rather, the Magistrates Court Act provides that if the notice is not paid or elected within time, the administering authority may take further enforcement action, such as filing a charge and seeking a conviction. The regulation’s only role is to set the fixed penalty amounts and the content rules; all other procedural rights and duties come from the parent Act.

Schedule 1 lists five offences with their infringement penalties. The penalty units column is included only as a reference to the maximum court penalty; the actual dollar amount in column 4 is what the recipient must pay if they elect to pay the notice. For an individual, the infringement penalties are: s 29(3) - $220; s 58(2) - $1,250; s 59(2) - $576; s 60(1) - $420; s 61(2) - $420. For a corporation, these amounts are multiplied by five: $1,100, $6,250, $2,880, $2,100, and $2,100 respectively. The cost of serving a reminder notice is $34, set by s 8(3).

These penalties are substantially lower than the maximum court penalties. Taking s 58(2) as an example: the maximum court penalty is 50 penalty units, which for an individual is $8,000 (50 x $160) and for a corporation is $40,500 (50 x $810). The infringement penalty for an individual is $1,250 (15.6% of the maximum); for a corporation is $6,250 (15.4% of the maximum). While the discount is large, it is consistent with the rationale that infringement notices are intended for minor or first offences, not serious misconduct. However, the regulation does not impose any condition that the offence be minor; the registrar can issue a notice for any alleged breach of the scheduled provisions regardless of severity. This creates a risk that serious misconduct is penalised at a much lower rate than the maximum, reducing general deterrence.

The enforcement pathway is: service of notice → payment (matter resolved) or election to court (full prosecution) or no response → reminder notice (cost $34 added) → further default → court proceedings. The regulation does not specify the consequences of non-payment after a reminder notice; that is covered by the Magistrates Court Act, which allows the administering authority to initiate prosecution. If the recipient ignores both notices, they may face the full court penalty plus costs and possibly a criminal record.

The administering authority is the professional engineers registrar. The authorised persons who serve notices are limited to the registrar, deputy registrar, and persons appointed under s 48 of the Professional Engineers Act. This centralisation of enforcement in the registrar means that private parties (e.g., competitors, clients) cannot issue infringement notices; only state officers can. This reduces the risk of vexatious notices but also concentrates power in a single office. The registrar’s discretion to issue a notice rather than prosecute is not bounded by any criteria in the regulation, which opens a risk of selective enforcement or inconsistency.

The penalty amounts are fixed by the regulation and cannot be varied by the authorised person. The only flexibility is the decision to issue or not issue a notice. Once issued, the amount is mandatory. This removes the possibility of settlement negotiations or cautioning for minor offences outside the infringement notice framework.

The penalty value is not indexed automatically; it remains at the dollar figure set in the Schedule unless amended by future regulation. This means over time the real value of the penalty may decline due to inflation, further eroding deterrence. The penalty unit amounts are adjusted periodically under the Legislation Act, but the infringement penalties are fixed dollar amounts, not penalty unit multiples, so they will gradually lose purchasing power.

The regulation is explicitly made under the Magistrates Court Act 1930 and relies on Part 3.8 of that Act for the entire infringement notice regime. Any provision in the Magistrates Court Act that governs infringement notices applies to these offences unless the regulation says otherwise. For example, the time for payment, the method of service, the content of reminder notices (beyond the identification requirement added by s 11), and the procedures for withdrawal and court election are all found in the Magistrates Court Act. The regulation adds a few specific content requirements (identification, ACN) but does not override the parent Act.

The Professional Engineers Act 2023 is the source of the substantive offences. The regulation does not amend or interpret that Act; it merely lists five provisions as eligible for infringement notices. This means that any defence, exception, or exemption in the Professional Engineers Act that would apply to a prosecution also applies to an infringement notice matter if the recipient elects court. However, if the recipient pays the notice, they waive any such defence. The interaction therefore creates an incentive to waive defences that may be valid, simply because the penalty is low enough to make the cost of proving the defence unattractive.

The Legislation Act 2001 applies to the regulation in several ways. Section 133 of the Legislation Act sets the penalty unit values ($160 for individuals, $810 for corporations) as at the republication date. Those values are used in the offence penalty column (column 3 of Schedule 1) but are not directly used for the infringement penalty amounts. The definition of “corporation” and “individual” are imported by note in the dictionary. The Legislation Act also governs the commencement, reprinting, and interpretation of the regulation. Note that section 2 of the regulation (commencement) was omitted under s 89(4) of the Legislation Act, so the commencement is governed by the Professional Engineers Act 2023 as amended.

The Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) generally applies to offences under ACT laws. If the Professional Engineers Act offences are subject to the Criminal Code, then the fault elements and defences in the Code apply. However, the regulation itself does not address this; the recipient who elects court may rely on the Criminal Code, but the infringement notice system operates outside the court, and the payment of a notice does not require proof of fault. This creates an anomaly: a person who pays the notice may be accepting liability for an offence that would otherwise require proof of intention, recklessness, or negligence. The regulation does not specify whether the infringement notice offences are strict liability or fault-based. That depends on the Professional Engineers Act.

The regulation does not interact with federal laws, except indirectly through the requirement to include the ACN of a company (s 10), which is a common procedural requirement to ensure the correct legal entity is identified.

The regulation has a minimal amendment history. It was notified on the ACT legislation register on 26 August 2024. Sections 1 and 2 commenced on that date. The remainder commenced on 6 March 2025, which is the same commencement date as the Professional Engineers Act 2023 (as amended by various amending Acts). The republication is marked as R1, effective 6 March 2025, and notes that the regulation has not been amended since its making. The only change recorded in the amendment history is the omission of section 2 (commencement) under Legislation Act 2001 s 89(4). That omission is a standard editorial practice; the commencement information is now provided in the legislation history endnote instead of in a separate section.

There have been no substantive amendments, no schedules added or removed, and no penalty amounts altered. This is unsurprising given the regulation is less than a year old at the republication date. However, the lack of amendment history also means the regulation has not yet been tested in practice or adjusted in response to enforcement experience. The fixed penalty amounts may need revision if inflation erodes their value, or if the registrar finds that the amounts are too low to deter corporate non-compliance. No amendment history also means there is no pattern of legislative response to judicial interpretation (since none exists).

Practitioners should monitor the ACT legislation register for future amendments, especially any changes to the Schedule 1 amounts or addition of new offences from the Professional Engineers Act. The regulation is a subordinate instrument and can be amended relatively quickly by the Executive without primary legislation.

As of the republication date (6 March 2025), there is no litigation history for this regulation. It only came into force on that date. No court has interpreted its provisions, tested the validity of its notices, or considered issues such as compliance with the identification requirements, the reasonableness of the penalty amounts, or the interaction with the Professional Engineers Act defences.

Potential future litigation issues include: a challenge to the validity of an infringement notice that fails to identify the authorised person correctly (e.g., using a unique number that is not properly assigned, or omitting the surname); a challenge to the service of a notice on a company without the ACN; a challenge to the multiplier for corporations as being arbitrary or disproportionate; or a challenge to the application of infringement notices to conduct that is not truly minor (since the regulation does not restrict the registrar’s discretion). However, because infringement notices are usually paid and not litigated, there may be very few cases that advance to a full hearing. The regulation may thus operate largely without judicial scrutiny.

If a recipient does elect court and the matter proceeds to trial, the court will consider the underlying offence under the Professional Engineers Act, not the infringement notice. The notice itself is not a charge; it is merely an alternative procedure. The validity of the notice may be a collateral issue if the recipient argues that procedural defects mean the notice cannot be the basis for a conviction. The regulation’s content requirements are likely to be strictly construed since they are procedural prerequisites for a valid notice.

Given the short time since commencement, no statistics on the number of notices issued, payment rates, or elections to court are available yet. That information may be obtained from the ACT government under freedom of information if needed for research.

The most significant trap is the steep discount from the maximum court penalty. A recipient might assume that because the infringement penalty is low, the underlying offence is minor. But the maximum court penalty can be much higher, and the offence may carry serious professional consequences such as suspension or cancellation of registration under the Professional Engineers Act. Paying the notice could be seen as an admission in subsequent disciplinary proceedings, even though the note says it is an alternative to prosecution. The Professional Engineers Act may have separate disciplinary provisions that treat payment of an infringement notice as a finding of breach. The regulation does not address this, so recipients should check the professional engineers code of conduct and regulatory framework.

The corporation multiplier of 5x applies automatically. If a company is served a notice, the penalty is the column 4 amount multiplied by five, not the column 4 amount itself. This is not always obvious from reading the schedule, which lists only the individual-level penalty. Section 8(2) is clear, but a busy compliance officer might look at Schedule 1, see $220, and pay that amount, only to find later that the notice was not satisfied and the matter proceeds to court with extra costs. The notice itself should state the correct amount, but if it does not, the recipient may be misled.

The reminder notice cost of $34 is fixed but is additional to the infringement penalty. If the recipient ignores the initial notice, they will owe an extra $34 if a reminder is issued. The regulation does not cap the number of reminder notices or state whether multiple reminders can be sent. The cost is low but can accumulate, and the administering authority might add costs for each reminder.

The identification requirement in s 9 and s 11 allows the authorised person to use a unique number instead of a name. This number is assigned by the registrar for the regulation. There is no public register of these numbers, so the recipient cannot independently confirm the identity of the authorised person. If the number is incorrectly assigned or is shared among multiple officers, the recipient may be unable to determine who issued the notice. This could cause problems if the recipient needs to contact the issuing officer to negotiate or query the notice.

The regulation does not specify the time limit for serving reminder notices or for paying. Those come from the Magistrates Court Act, which may have a default period of 28 days. If the recipient misses that deadline, they cannot then pay the fixed amount; the matter defaults. The regulation provides no grace period or extension mechanism. The $34 reminder notice cost is additional, but the default may lead to a full prosecution with higher penalties.

Another trap: the schedule lists only five offences. If the registrar attempts to issue an infringement notice for an offence under a different provision of the Professional Engineers Act (e.g., s 29(1) instead of s 29(3)), that notice would be invalid because the regulation does not apply to that provision. The recipient could ignore it or challenge it, but may need legal advice to identify the error.

Finally, the regulation does not address evidentiary matters. If a recipient pays the notice, they are not convicted, but the payment may still be admissible in other proceedings (e.g., civil liability or employer disciplinary action) as an admission of the conduct. The regulation is silent on whether the payment is deemed an admission; the Magistrates Court Act usually provides that payment is not an admission of guilt for any purpose, but that may not bind civil proceedings or disciplinary tribunals. A professional engineer who pays a notice might later face a registration review on the basis that they accepted they breached a registration condition.

For a person who receives an infringement notice under this regulation, the primary decision is whether to pay or elect court. To comply with the notice and avoid escalation, the recipient should pay the exact amount shown on the notice within the period stated in the notice (typically 28 days). Payment can be made to the administering authority (the professional engineers registrar) by the methods stated on the notice. The regulation does not prescribe payment methods, so the notice should include instructions. Payment discharges liability for the offence, and the matter is closed.

If the recipient believes they did not commit the offence, or if the notice contains an error (e.g., wrong date, incorrect identification, missing ACN for a company), they should not simply pay. They should elect to have the matter dealt with by a court, following the instructions on the notice. Making an election is usually a matter of writing to the registrar within the time period. Once an election is made, the matter proceeds as a prosecution, and the recipient can present their defence. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the recipient can rely on defences, exemptions, and procedural arguments.

For companies, ensure that any notice you receive includes your ACN. If it does not, that is a procedural defect. You can still pay the notice (though the defect may be irrelevant once paid), or you can elect court and argue the notice is invalid. The same applies for individuals: check that the authorised person is properly identified. If the notice omits the name or unique number, or the number is not traceable, the notice may be unenforceable.

For authorised persons (registrar, deputy, or appointed officers), compliance means ensuring every notice you serve satisfies ss 9-11. Identify yourself by full name (or surname and initials) or by your assigned unique number. For a company notice, include the ACN. The notice must also comply with the Magistrates Court Act s 121(1)(c) (offence details, penalty, etc.). Ensure that the penalty amount is correctly calculated: for a corporation, multiply the Schedule 1, column 4 amount by five. For a reminder notice, include the $34 cost. Do not issue a notice for an offence not listed in Schedule 1; that would be outside the regulation and likely invalid.

The administering authority (registrar) should maintain a register of unique numbers issued under s 9 and ensure each number corresponds to a specific authorised person. The register should be secure and accessible for verification if a recipient queries a notice.

The recipient’s best practice is to read the notice carefully, note the deadline, and decide promptly. If unsure, seek legal advice before the deadline. The cost of legal advice may exceed the infringement penalty for some small offences; that economic reality is why many will pay even if they are innocent. To mitigate that, the regulation could have included a lower penalty for early payment or a waiver period, but it does not. The system therefore inherently rewards payment over scrutiny, which is a design feature of most infringement notice regimes, but it is one that compliance professionals should make clear to clients: the cheapest path is often to pay, but that may not be just if you are not liable. The regulation itself offers no solution to that dilemma.