Statute Details
- Title: Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013
- Act Code: RTA1961-S305-2013
- Legislative Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Transport (made under section 142 of the Road Traffic Act)
- Commencement: 19 May 2013
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Exemption)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per provided extract)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013 is a short but practically important piece of subsidiary legislation. Its core function is to carve out specific circumstances in which a registered owner is not subject to a particular statutory rule about liability for road tax.
In plain language, the Road Traffic Act imposes obligations relating to the payment of vehicle tax. The Act also contains provisions that determine who is responsible for tax and under what conditions that responsibility applies. This Order modifies that position by providing exemptions for registered owners in defined loss/forfeiture/unfitness scenarios.
Although the Order is limited to a single operative provision (Section 2), it addresses real-world events that commonly affect vehicle ownership and use—such as forfeiture under other laws, theft-related loss, loss due to criminal breach of trust, and situations where the vehicle becomes wholly unfit for further use. The exemption is not automatic; it depends on the Registrar being satisfied of the relevant facts.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1: Citation and commencement confirms the legal identity of the instrument and when it takes effect. The Order may be cited as the Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013 and comes into operation on 19 May 2013. For practitioners, this matters when determining whether the exemption can be relied upon for events occurring before or after commencement.
Section 2: Exemption from the liability rule is the operative provision. It states that Section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act shall not apply to a registered owner for the payment of tax under Section 11(1)(b) in respect of his vehicle, if the Registrar is satisfied that one of the listed conditions is met.
To understand the practical effect, it is helpful to read Section 2 as doing two things at once:
- First, it identifies the statutory liability rule being displaced—Section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act.
- Second, it sets out the factual gateways—four categories of events—through which a registered owner may obtain an exemption from that liability.
The four exemption grounds are set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section 2. Each ground is tied to a specific type of event and typically requires evidence sufficient to satisfy the Registrar:
(a) Vehicle forfeited pursuant to any written law
If the vehicle has been forfeited under any written law, the registered owner may seek exemption. This covers forfeiture regimes across different legal contexts (for example, where vehicles are forfeited as part of enforcement action). The key is that the forfeiture must be pursuant to “any written law”, meaning it must have a statutory basis rather than a purely contractual or administrative outcome.
(b) Vehicle lost through theft, reported to the police
If the vehicle is lost through theft, the registered owner must show that the loss has been reported to the police. The police report requirement is significant: it provides an objective record of the theft and the timing of reporting. Practically, lawyers advising clients should ensure that the police report is obtained and retained, and that it clearly identifies the vehicle and the circumstances of the theft.
(c) Vehicle lost through criminal breach of trust, reported to the police
Similarly, where the vehicle is lost through criminal breach of trust, the loss must be reported to the police. This ground is distinct from theft. Criminal breach of trust typically involves entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. The Order therefore recognises that different criminal pathways can lead to vehicle loss, but in both theft and criminal breach of trust cases, the reporting requirement to police is a common evidential safeguard.
(d) Vehicle has become wholly unfit for further use
The final ground is not crime-related. It applies where the vehicle has become wholly unfit for further use. This phrase is likely to be interpreted in a practical and technical manner: the vehicle must be beyond reasonable continued use, not merely damaged or temporarily unavailable. In practice, the Registrar’s satisfaction may depend on inspection reports, assessments by relevant parties, or documentary evidence demonstrating that the vehicle cannot be used safely or effectively.
“Registrar is satisfied” is the central procedural condition. The exemption is discretionary in the sense that it depends on the Registrar’s satisfaction of the facts. For legal practitioners, this means that the evidential package is crucial. The Order does not specify the form of proof, but it does require that the Registrar be satisfied—so submissions should be tailored to each ground and supported by credible documents.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is structured in a simple two-section format:
- Section 1 (Citation and commencement): sets out the short title and the date the Order comes into force.
- Section 2 (Exemption): provides the substantive exemption by disapplying Section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act in specified circumstances, subject to the Registrar’s satisfaction.
There are no schedules, definitions, or additional procedural provisions in the extract provided. As a result, the legal work typically focuses on (i) identifying the relevant statutory liability rule in the Road Traffic Act, (ii) fitting the client’s facts into one of the four exemption grounds, and (iii) assembling evidence to satisfy the Registrar.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to a registered owner of a vehicle. The exemption is specifically tied to the registered owner’s liability for tax under Section 11(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. Accordingly, it is not aimed at other parties such as hirers, drivers, or insurers, unless they are also the registered owners for the purposes of the Act.
In terms of scope, the exemption is limited to cases where the Registrar is satisfied that the vehicle has been forfeited, stolen (with police reporting), lost through criminal breach of trust (with police reporting), or has become wholly unfit for further use. Therefore, the Order is fact-specific and does not provide a general waiver of tax liability for all circumstances of non-use.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
For practitioners, the significance of the Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013 lies in its targeted relief. Vehicle tax liability can create administrative and financial burdens for registered owners when the vehicle is no longer in their possession or control due to events beyond their ability to prevent—such as theft, criminal breach of trust, or legal forfeiture. This Order recognises those realities and provides a mechanism to prevent the statutory liability rule from operating unfairly in such cases.
The exemption is also important because it is conditional. It does not automatically relieve liability merely because a vehicle is missing or damaged. Instead, it requires satisfaction of specific criteria, including police reporting for theft and criminal breach of trust, and a threshold of “wholly unfit for further use” for the non-criminal ground. This design reflects a balance between administrative certainty for the tax system and fairness to owners affected by exceptional circumstances.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the “Registrar is satisfied” standard means that practitioners should treat this as an evidential exercise. Advising clients will often involve: obtaining and preserving police reports; documenting forfeiture orders or legal instruments; commissioning or collecting assessments supporting unfitness; and ensuring that the exemption application is aligned with the timing and factual narrative relevant to the vehicle’s status.
Finally, because the Order disapplies Section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act, it can be central in disputes where the Registrar or other authorities seek to hold a registered owner responsible for tax despite the vehicle’s forfeiture or loss. In such matters, the Order provides a clear statutory basis to argue for exemption, provided the factual gateways are met.
Related Legislation
- Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276) — in particular:
- Section 11(1)(b) (tax liability framework)
- Section 11(2) (liability rule disapplied by this Order)
- Section 142 (power to make subsidiary legislation)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.