Magistrates Court (Public Unleased Land Infringement Notices) Regulation 2013

The central concept is the infringement notice offence. This is an offence against a provision of the PUL Act listed in schedule 1, column 2. The regulation brings those offences within the infringement notice framework of Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930. The key advantage for the administering authority is speed and administrative efficiency: an authorised person can issue a notice on the spot, and the recipient can discharge the matter by paying the fixed penalty without a court appearance. The concept of administering authority (section 6) identifies the two entities responsible for managing the infringement notice system for PUL Act offences: the director‑general (the head of the relevant government directorate) and the commissioner for fair trading. These bodies decide whether to issue a notice or proceed by prosecution. The authorised person concept (defined in the dictionary of the Magistrates Court Act 1930, cross‑referenced in this regulation) means someone who has the power to issue notices. This regulation expands the class of authorised persons beyond the ordinary PUL Act appointees, by including Fair Trading investigators in two limited circumstances: outdoor eating or drinking places, and certain vehicle parking offences (sections 12(2)(a) and (b)). The infringement penalty is the dollar amount set out in schedule 1, column 4. It is the amount an individual must pay to avoid prosecution. For corporations, that amount is multiplied by five (section 8(2)). The reminder notice is a follow‑up notice served if the original infringement notice is not paid within the required period. Serving a reminder notice carries a fixed cost of $34 (section 8(3)). The identity card concept is important: the authorised person must be identifiable by their identity card number on both the infringement notice and the reminder notice (sections 9 and 11). This provides a check against unauthorised enforcement and allows the recipient to verify the officer’s authority. Finally, the outdoor eating or drinking place concept (defined by cross‑reference to the Smoke‑Free Public Places Act 2003, section 9A) limits the circumstances in which Fair Trading investigators can issue notices. That definition generally covers footpath dining areas licensed for liquor or food. The regulation therefore introduces a specialised enforcement channel for commercial tenancies on public unleased land used for outdoor hospitality.

The regulation directly affects three groups: individuals and corporations who occupy or use public unleased land in the ACT, government enforcement officers, and businesses that operate outdoor eating or drinking places. Individuals and corporations are the potential recipients of infringement notices for the 19 offences listed in schedule 1. The offences include, for example, unauthorised structures (section 13), unauthorised signs (section 16), obstruction of public land (section 20), damage to public land (section 22), failing to comply with a direction (section 26), use without a permit (section 43), and breach of permit conditions (section 44). The infringement penalties range from $22 (for a single penalty unit offence such as failing to produce an identity card under section 77) to $1,100 (for the most serious offences such as engaging in business or commerce without a permit under section 35). For corporations, the penalties are five times those amounts, ranging from $110 to $5,500. This creates a direct financial exposure for any entity using public unleased land without authorisation or in breach of conditions. The recipient of a notice must choose between paying the fine or electing to have the matter dealt with by a court. Government enforcement officers are affected because the regulation expands the pool of authorised persons who can issue notices. In addition to PUL Act appointees (typically rangers or compliance officers), investigators from the Fair Trading unit can also issue notices for offences relating to outdoor eating or drinking places and certain vehicle parking offences on public unleased land. This dual enforcement structure means that two separate government agencies share the power to impose fines, which could lead to inconsistency in enforcement priorities or doubling up. Outdoor hospitality businesses (cafes, restaurants with footpath dining) are particularly affected because the infringement notice framework covers permit conditions under sections 43 and 44. A business that extends its outdoor area beyond the permitted boundary or fails to maintain clear pathways could receive a $440 fine (individual) or $2,200 (corporation) for a permit‑related infringement. The regulation also indirectly affects taxpayers who fund the enforcement infrastructure, and holders of permits for public land use who must comply with conditions or face a streamlined fine.

The regulation imposes a duty on authorised persons to identify themselves by their identity card number on any infringement notice or reminder notice they serve (sections 9 and 11). This is a procedural requirement that ensures accountability and allows the recipient to know which officer issued the notice. If a notice fails to comply with this requirement, it may be invalid or challengeable. The regulation does not itself create a duty for the recipient to pay; that duty arises under Part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930, which the regulation simply incorporates. However, the critical right is the recipient’s right to elect to have the matter dealt with by a court rather than paying the infringement penalty. The regulation does not specify the election mechanism, but that is governed by the parent Act. The recipient also has the right to access the identity card number of the issuing officer, which provides a means of verifying the officer’s appointment and possibly challenging the notice if the identification is missing or incorrect. The regulation also imposes a duty on the administering authority (director‑general or commissioner for fair trading) to ensure that the person serving the notice is properly authorised. For Fair Trading investigators, that authority is limited to specific types of offences: outdoor eating or drinking places (section 12(2)(a)), and vehicle parking offences under sections 43 and 44 of the PUL Act (section 12(2)(b)). If an investigator issues a notice for a different type of offence, that notice may be beyond power and thus void. The recipient has a right not to be served with an invalid notice. For companies, there is an additional duty on the authorised person to include the company’s ACN on the infringement notice (section 10). If the ACN is missing, the notice may not comply with the Magistrates Court Act 1930 section 121(1)(c) requirements. The reminder notice cost of $34 (section 8(3)) is a fixed fee that can be added to the outstanding amount if the recipient fails to pay on time. The recipient has no right to avoid that cost; it is automatically payable if a reminder notice is served. That cost is set by regulation and is not tied to actual administrative costs, so it acts as a penalty for late payment.

The penalties in this regulation are the infringement notice penalties, not the maximum court penalties. The court penalties (column 3 of schedule 1) are expressed in penalty units. At the current value of $160 per unit for an individual (and $810 for a corporation), the court penalties are significantly higher. For example, the offence of engaging in business or commerce on public unleased land without a permit carries a maximum court penalty of 50 penalty units ($8,000 for an individual, $40,500 for a corporation), but the infringement notice penalty is only $1,100 for an individual and $5,500 for a corporation. This large discount creates a strong incentive to accept the infringement notice. The embedded trade off is that paying the fine waives the right to contest the allegation, and no conviction is recorded (unless the matter proceeds to court and a conviction is imposed). For a corporation, the penalty multiplier of five times the individual amount (section 8(2)) means that a corporate recipient faces a higher absolute fine, but still much less than the maximum court penalty. For example, the offence of failing to comply with a financial assurance condition on a permit (item 11, column 2) carries an individual infringement penalty of $660 and a corporate infringement penalty of $3,300, compared to a maximum court penalty of 30 penalty units ($24,300 for a corporation). The reminder notice cost of $34 (section 8(3)) is an additional fixed penalty for non payment. This cost is not scaled to the original penalty. For a low level offence like failing to produce an identity card ($22), a $34 reminder notice fee more than doubles the total payable. That could be disproportionate, but the regulation does not provide any mechanism to waive it. Enforcement is carried out by the two administering authorities (section 6). They decide whether to issue a notice, proceed to prosecution, or take other action under the PUL Act. The regulation does not limit their discretion. The authorised persons (section 12) are the frontline enforcers. The regulation does not prescribe training or qualifications for authorised persons beyond being appointed under the PUL Act or the Fair Trading Act. That leaves room for variation in enforcement quality. The schedule 1 penalties are set in dollar amounts, not penalty units, so they are not automatically indexed to inflation. Any change requires an amendment to the regulation. The 2023 amendment (SL2023-31) did not change the dollar amounts; it only added new offence items and renumbered existing ones. Therefore the dollar amounts have remained static since 2013, while penalty unit values have increased (from $130 to $160 per unit for individuals). This means the infringement penalties have become relatively cheaper compared to court penalties over time, further incentivising acceptance of the notice.

This regulation is made under the Magistrates Court Act 1930 and operates as a subordinate law within that Act’s infringement notice framework. The key interaction is with Part 3.8 of the parent Act, which sets out the general rules for infringement notices, including time limits for payment, the election mechanism, and the consequences of non payment. This regulation does not repeat those rules; it simply provides the list of offences and penalties that are brought within that framework. The regulation also interacts directly with the Public Unleased Land Act 2013. It identifies specific offences from that Act that are eligible for infringement notices. The PUL Act contains the substantive offences; this regulation only provides the enforcement shortcut. The regulation also cross‑references the Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 for the appointment of investigators. That Act’s section 36(1) allows the appointment of investigators, and this regulation gives those investigators limited authority to serve infringement notices for PUL Act offences relating to outdoor eating or drinking places (which are defined by reference to the Smoke‑Free Public Places Act 2003) and for vehicle parking offences under sections 43 and 44 of the PUL Act. This creates an intersection between consumer protection legislation and public land regulation. The Legislation Act 2001 is also relevant: it governs the interpretation of this regulation, provides for the definition of terms used (see notes to dictionary), and sets the current penalty unit values. The dictionary of the regulation confirms that terms like “administering authority”, “authorised person”, “infringement notice”, “infringement notice offence”, and “reminder notice” have the same meaning as in the Magistrates Court Act 1930. That Act’s dictionary defines those terms. The regulation also cross‑references the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the definition of “company” in section 10(2). That definition is limited to a company registered under the Corporations Act, so it does not include other legal entities such as incorporated associations or partnerships. Those entities would not need to have an ACN included on a notice, though they could still receive a notice. The public land permit system under the PUL Act is the substantive legal context. The regulation does not create any new permit conditions; it only provides a streamlined penalty for breaches of existing conditions. The interaction means that a permit holder who breaches a condition faces not only potential revocation of the permit under the PUL Act, but also a fixed fine under this regulation. There is no double jeopardy issue because the infringement notice is an alternative to prosecution, not an additional penalty.

The regulation was originally notified on 27 June 2013 as SL2013-17 and commenced on 1 July 2013 (the same day as the Public Unleased Land Act 2013). The commencement provision (section 2) was later omitted under the Legislation Act 2001 section 89(4) because it had become spent. The first amendment was made by the Statute Law Amendment Act 2015 (A2015-15), which commenced on 10 June 2015. That amendment modified section 12 (authorised people for infringement notice offences). The exact changes are noted as amendments 3.121 and 3.122 in the endnotes, but the text of those amendments is not reproduced. The current section 12(2) allows Fair Trading investigators to serve notices for outdoor eating or drinking places and certain parking offences. It is likely that the 2015 amendment expanded or refined the scope of those authorised persons. The second amendment was made by the Magistrates Court (Public Unleased Land Infringement Notices) Amendment Regulation 2023 (No 1) (SL2023-31), notified on 28 November 2023 and commencing on 29 November 2023. This amendment altered schedule 1 (the list of offences and penalties). According to the endnotes, the amendment added new offence items and renumbered existing items. The republication now shows 19 items (previously 14?). The earlier republication R2 (10 June 2015 to 28 November 2023) had fewer items. The 2023 amendment also likely updated the penalty dollar amounts, though the schedule shows the same amounts as might have been in earlier versions? Actually, the column 4 amounts in the current schedule are $22, $110, $220, $440, $660, $1,100. Those amounts have been unchanged since 2013? Possibly the 2023 amendment added new offences (e.g., items 12-19 may be new). The amendment history shows “sch 1 am SL2023-31 s 4; items renum R3 LA”. So the schedule was amended by the 2023 regulation and then renumbered by the Parliamentary Counsel under the Legislation Act 2001 part 11.3. The total number of items went from 14 to 19. The new items include offences such as failing to comply with a direction to remove an animal (section 77), failing to produce an identity card (section 84), and others. This expansion broadens the reach of the infringement notice system. The regulation has been republished three times: R1 (1 July 2013), R2 (10 June 2015), and R3 (29 November 2023). No other amendments have been made. The amendment history is relatively sparse, suggesting that the infringement notice regime has been stable for most of its existence, with a significant expansion in 2023.

The regulation text and endnotes do not record any litigation specifically concerning this regulation. There are no cases cited in the source. This does not mean no litigation has occurred; it may be that challenges to infringement notices under this regulation have been dealt with in the Magistrates Court without being reported or that no appeal has reached a higher court. The absence of recorded litigation suggests that the regulation has operated without substantial legal controversy. This could be because the penalties are low enough that most recipients simply pay the fine rather than contest it, or because the procedural requirements (such as identification by identity card) are straightforward and rarely challenged. However, the absence of litigation in the source does not guarantee that no challenges have been mounted. It is possible that challenges have been made on grounds of improper authorisation (e.g., a Fair Trading investigator issuing a notice for an offence outside their limited scope) or failure to include the identity card number, but such challenges may have been resolved without a reported decision. The regulation’s interaction with the Magistrates Court Act 1930 Part 3.8 means that any legal challenge would likely focus on the parent Act’s requirements, not just this regulation. For example, the parent Act sets out the right to elect to have the matter heard in court, and the time limits for doing so. A challenge could also arise if a notice is served on the wrong entity (e.g., a company without its ACN, or an individual misidentified). But no specific litigation history is provided. For the analyst, this means there is no judicial guidance on the interpretation of provisions such as “outdoor eating or drinking place” in the context of this regulation, or on the validity of notices that omit the identity card number. Practitioners should treat the regulation as untested in court, and advise clients accordingly if they wish to challenge a notice.

Several provisions in the regulation could catch a recipient or enforcement officer off guard. Corporate multiplier trap: Section 8(2) says the penalty payable by a corporation is five times the amount in column 4. The regulation does not define “corporation” except in section 10(2) (for ACN purposes). The five‑times multiplier applies to any corporation, including a small incorporated association or a proprietary limited company. Most business owners who operate through a company structure face a significantly higher fine than if they acted as individuals. The difference can be thousands of dollars. Limited authority of Fair Trading investigators: Section 12(2) authorises Fair Trading investigators to serve notices only in two narrow situations: outdoor eating or drinking places (defined by reference to smoke‑free legislation) and parking offences under sections 43/44. If an officer from the Fair Trading unit issues a notice for any other PUL Act offence (e.g., an unauthorised sign on public land), that notice is likely invalid. Recipients should check the authorised person’s identity card and the notice type. If the officer is from Fair Trading but the offence is not one of the two listed categories, the notice can be challenged. Company ACN requirement: Section 10 requires the infringement notice to include the company’s ACN. This is mandatory. If a notice fails to include the ACN, it does not comply with the Magistrates Court Act 1930 section 121(1)(c). That non‑compliance may render the notice invalid. A corporate recipient could argue that the notice is void and the fine is not payable. Reminder notice cost: The $34 reminder notice cost (section 8(3)) is a fixed amount that can be added to the original penalty. It is not capped by the original penalty amount. For the lowest offence ($22), the reminder cost more than doubles the total. A recipient who pays late will incur this cost automatically. There is no discretion to waive it. Identity card number required: Sections 9 and 11 require the infringement notice and reminder notice to identify the authorised person by their identity card number. If the number is missing or incorrectly stated, the notice may be invalid. A recipient should check this detail. Offence with two penalty amounts: Item 6 in schedule 1 (section 28(1)(b)(ii)) has two separate infringement penalty amounts: $1,100 for insurance‑related matters and $220 for other matters. The regulation does not explain which amount applies in what circumstance. That ambiguity could lead to incorrect penalty selection and challenge. Offence 11: Item 11 (section 44(1)) also has two amounts: $440 for non‑financial assurance conditions and $660 for financial assurance conditions. The distinction matters for the severity of the fine. An officer must correctly categorise the breach. Penalty units vs dollars: The schedule shows both court penalties in penalty units (column 3) and infringement penalties in dollars (column 4). The infringement penalties are not a simple conversion of penalty units at the current unit value. They are fixed dollar amounts from 2013, so they are lower than the court penalty would be if calculated at the current unit value of $160. A recipient who does the math might think the infringement penalty is the same as the court penalty, but it is actually a significant discount. That may affect the decision to elect court. No indexation: The dollar amounts in column 4 have not been increased since 2013. They have effectively decreased in real terms. This means the deterrent effect of the infringement penalty has eroded over time. The government may need to amend the regulation periodically to maintain real penalty levels.

Compliance with this regulation is essentially a matter of understanding the infringement notice system and responding appropriately if you receive a notice. For recipients of a notice (individual or corporation), the first step is to check the validity of the notice. Verify that the authorised person’s identity card number is included (sections 9 and 11). If the notice is from a Fair Trading investigator, ensure that the offence relates to an outdoor eating or drinking place or to vehicle parking under sections 43/44 (section 12(2)). If the notice is issued for a different offence, or if the identity card number is missing, the notice may be invalid. For companies, check that the notice includes the company’s ACN (section 10). If any of these details are missing or incorrect, the recipient should consider challenging the notice by electing to have the matter heard in court. If the notice appears valid, the recipient has two options: pay the fixed penalty within the time stated (usually 28 days under the parent Act) to avoid prosecution, or elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. Paying the penalty is the simplest and cheapest option, given the substantial discount compared to the maximum court penalty. The regulation does not allow a person to pay a reduced amount; it is the full amount in column 4 (or five times that for a corporation) plus the reminder cost if applicable. For businesses operating outdoor dining or using public unleased land, proactive compliance with the PUL Act is essential to avoid receiving a notice at all. This means obtaining the necessary permits (sections 35 and 43), complying with permit conditions (section 44), not obstructing public land (section 20), not damaging public land (section 22), and following directions from authorised officers (section 26). Businesses should also ensure their outdoor dining areas are clearly marked and do not extend beyond the permitted boundary. Because the infringement notice system is administered by two separate bodies (director‑general and commissioner for fair trading), businesses may receive notices from either rangers or Fair Trading officers. Both have enforcement powers, so compliance with both the PUL Act and any conditions imposed by Fair Trading (e.g., for outdoor dining approvals) is necessary. For officers issuing notices, compliance requires including the identity card number on every notice and reminder notice, and ensuring that the notice is within the scope of their authorisation. Fair Trading investigators must confine their enforcement to the two categories in section 12(2). They should also include the company ACN when issuing to a company. The regulation does not prescribe a form for the notice, but the Magistrates Court Act 1930 sets general content requirements. Officers should be familiar with the schedule to ensure they apply the correct penalty amount, including the distinction between insurance‑related and non‑insurance related items. For administering authorities, compliance means maintaining a system to track notices, payments, and reminders, and ensuring that only authorised persons are issuing notices. The $34 reminder notice cost should be added only when a reminder notice is actually served. The regulation does not impose a duty to provide a receipt or acknowledgment, but the parent Act may require it.