Statute Details
- Title: Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013
- Act Code: RTA1961-S305-2013
- Legislative Type: Subsidiary legislation (Order)
- Authorising Act: Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276)
- Authorising Power: Section 142 of the Road Traffic Act
- Enacting Formula: Minister for Transport makes the Order in exercise of powers under section 142
- Citation: Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013
- Commencement: 19 May 2013
- Key Provisions in the Extract: Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Exemption)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per the legislation portal)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013 is a targeted legal instrument made under the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276). In plain terms, it creates a limited exemption from a specific rule about who is responsible for paying road tax when a vehicle is no longer in the registered owner’s possession or is no longer usable.
Under the Road Traffic Act, road tax is generally payable by the registered owner of a vehicle. The Act also contains provisions that can impose liability on the registered owner for tax in circumstances where the vehicle’s status changes. This Order modifies that position by carving out situations where the Registrar of Vehicles (the “Registrar”) is satisfied that the vehicle has effectively been removed from circulation in particular ways.
Practically, the Order is designed to prevent unfairness and administrative rigidity. For example, if a vehicle has been forfeited under another law, stolen and reported to the police, lost through criminal breach of trust and reported, or has become wholly unfit for further use, it may be unreasonable to continue holding the registered owner liable for road tax. The exemption therefore depends on both (i) the factual circumstances and (ii) the Registrar’s satisfaction that the statutory conditions are met.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation and commencement) is straightforward. It provides that the Order may be cited as the Road Traffic (Liability for Tax) (Exemption) Order 2013 and that it came into operation on 19 May 2013. For practitioners, this matters when assessing whether the exemption can apply to events occurring before or after the commencement date, and when determining the applicable legal regime for any dispute or administrative decision.
Section 2 (Exemption) 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) of the Act in respect of his vehicle, if the Registrar is satisfied that one of four specified conditions is met.
The exemption is therefore not automatic. It is conditional on the Registrar’s satisfaction. In legal practice, this means that the registered owner typically bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to persuade the Registrar that the vehicle falls within one of the categories. The Order does not itself prescribe the form of evidence, but it clearly requires that the relevant events have occurred and, in certain cases, that police reports have been made.
The four conditions are:
(a) Vehicle forfeited pursuant to any written law
If the vehicle has been forfeited under another written law, the registered owner may seek exemption from the tax liability rule in section 11(2). The key legal concept here is “forfeited pursuant to any written law.” This suggests that the forfeiture must have a legal basis (for example, under legislation that provides for forfeiture as a consequence of unlawful conduct). Practitioners should therefore focus on obtaining the relevant forfeiture order or official documentation showing the forfeiture and its statutory foundation.
(b) Vehicle lost through theft, with loss reported to the police
Where the vehicle has been lost through theft, the exemption applies only if the loss has been reported to the police. The inclusion of the police-report requirement indicates that the Registrar will look for objective confirmation that the theft was reported. For practitioners, this typically involves obtaining a police report reference, acknowledgment, or other documentary proof of reporting. The Order does not specify timing (e.g., within a certain number of days), but delays could still be relevant to the Registrar’s assessment of credibility and completeness.
(c) Vehicle lost through criminal breach of trust, with loss reported to the police
This mirrors the theft category but addresses criminal breach of trust. Again, the loss must be reported to the police. The legal significance is that “criminal breach of trust” is a specific criminal law concept; therefore, the factual matrix should align with that offence. Practitioners should ensure that the police report (or related documentation) reflects the nature of the allegation and the circumstances leading to the vehicle’s loss.
(d) Vehicle has become wholly unfit for further use
This category is different from the “lost” and “forfeited” scenarios. It concerns the vehicle’s condition: it must have become “wholly unfit for further use.” This phrase suggests a high threshold—partial damage or repairable defects may not suffice. In practice, lawyers and clients may need to consider how “wholly unfit” is evidenced. While the Order does not specify inspection or certification requirements, the Registrar’s satisfaction will likely depend on credible evidence such as assessments by authorised workshops, survey reports, or other technical documentation demonstrating that the vehicle cannot reasonably be used further.
Interaction with the Road Traffic Act provisions
Although the extract does not reproduce section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, the Order clearly references two provisions: section 11(1)(b) (the basis for tax payment by the registered owner) and section 11(2) (the rule from which exemption is granted). The effect of the Order is to prevent section 11(2) from applying to the registered owner in the specified circumstances. For practitioners, the key interpretive point is that the exemption is framed as a carve-out from the liability mechanism in section 11(2), not as a general waiver of road tax in all circumstances.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured as a short instrument with two sections:
Section 1 sets out the citation and commencement date.
Section 2 provides the substantive exemption. It is drafted in a conditional form: section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act does not apply to the registered owner for tax under section 11(1)(b) if the Registrar is satisfied that one of the four enumerated circumstances exists.
There are no schedules, definitions, or procedural provisions in the extract. As a result, the practical process for applying the exemption will be governed by the general administrative and evidentiary expectations under the Road Traffic Act and the Registrar’s processes.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to registered owners of vehicles who are subject to the road tax liability framework under the Road Traffic Act. The exemption is specifically tied to the registered owner’s liability for tax in respect of his vehicle.
It does not appear to be directed at third parties (such as insurers, thieves, or persons in possession of the vehicle). Instead, it addresses the legal position of the person recorded as the registered owner. The Registrar’s satisfaction is central, meaning that the exemption is available only where the statutory conditions are met and supported by evidence sufficient for the Registrar to be satisfied.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This Order is important because it addresses a common administrative and fairness problem: how to treat road tax liability when a vehicle is no longer available to the registered owner due to forfeiture, theft, criminal breach of trust, or total unfitness. Without an exemption, the registered owner could face continued tax liability despite the vehicle being effectively removed from use or control.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order also clarifies that the exemption is not meant to be broad or discretionary. It is limited to four specific scenarios. This limitation helps maintain the integrity of the road tax system while still allowing relief in objectively verifiable circumstances.
For practitioners advising clients, the Order’s practical value lies in its evidentiary triggers. A lawyer should consider advising clients to preserve and obtain documentary proof relevant to the category claimed—such as forfeiture documentation, police reports for theft or criminal breach of trust, and credible evidence supporting a finding that the vehicle is wholly unfit for further use. Because the Registrar must be satisfied, the quality and relevance of evidence can be decisive.
Finally, the Order’s reference to the Road Traffic Act provisions means it should be read as part of a broader statutory scheme. Disputes about tax liability will often turn on whether the facts fall within one of the enumerated categories and whether the Registrar’s satisfaction can be supported. In administrative law terms, this can also influence how appeals or judicial review arguments are framed, particularly around procedural fairness and the reasonableness of the Registrar’s decision.
Related Legislation
- Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276) — in particular, sections 11(1)(b), 11(2), and the authorising power in section 142
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.