“The conditional acceptance of an offer amounts to rejection of same and not the conclusion of a contract, but may be a counter–offer.” (Extract from judgment below)

A good offer comes in for your property, so you accept it. But you’re not happy with a few of the terms, so before you sign you make a few changes to the offer. Maybe they are big changes, maybe they seem inconsequential.

Either way, you are now effectively negotiating, not accepting the offer. You have in fact just rejected it. Unless the buyer now accepts your amendments in writing (by initialing or counter-signing against your alterations), you almost certainly have no valid sale.

Thinking that you have a valid sale when you don’t is a common and easily-made mistake, and a recent High Court decision shows just how important it is for both seller and buyer to be aware of this danger.

The property auction, the counter-offer, and the commission claim

• A property on auction attracted a top bid of R1.85m and after some haggling the buyer put in a second offer of R1.9m.
• The seller accepted this second offer, but critically with amendments. The parties could not agree on these outstanding issues, with the result that the seller sold the property to another buyer without the auctioneers’ involvement.
• At which stage the auctioneers sued the seller for commission, arguing that a sale had been concluded at R1.9m because the amendments to that offer were “not material” ones (in other words, they weren’t important, significant or essential terms). The terms in question related to who was to receive the agreed occupational interest and to the issue of a gas compliance certificate. Neither amendment, argued the auctioneers, was material to the sale.
• The Court however disagreed, commenting that “In principle, anything more or less than an unqualified acceptance of the entire offer amounts to a counter-offer and constitutes a rejection of the original offer.” It accordingly dismissed the auctioneer’s claim for commission on the basis that the seller’s amendments were material and amounted to a counter-offer which the buyer had never accepted. In other words, no sale agreement had ever come into existence.

So, do you have a binding sale agreement?

If the amendments to the offer have been accepted and signed by both buyer and seller, no problem – the counter-offer has been accepted and you have a binding sale agreement.

Otherwise, as our courts have put it: “When parties conclude an agreement while there are outstanding issues requiring further negotiation, two possibilities would follow: no contract formed because the acceptance was conditional upon consensus, or a contract formed with an understanding that the outstanding issues would be negotiated at a later stage.” Deciding which is which means trying to deduce the parties’ intentions from their conduct and other circumstances – a grey and specialist area requiring specific legal advice.

Bottom line

Making a counter-offer can be an excellent tactic for negotiating towards agreement, but be very careful with the concept of “conditional acceptance”. It is actually not an acceptance at all but a rejection of the offer and could well be a counter-offer requiring acceptance by the other party in order for there to be a valid sale. Avoid all doubt by making sure everything is signed and counter-signed.

As always, ask us before you sign anything!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“…the prospect of continued employment must be shown to have been objectively intolerable and the employee must have resigned due to the intolerable situation and not for another reason.” (Extract from judgment below)

Perhaps you are an employer, and that troublesome employee who you’ve been hoping would resign does exactly that. Saving you, as you see it, from the risk, hassle, and expense of disciplinary or retrenchment proceedings. But are you really home and dry?

Or perhaps you are an employee, driven to resign by your employer’s constant maneuvering to make your continued employment unbearable. Do you have any recourse?

The answer to both questions lies in the Labour Relations Act’s definition of “dismissal”, which includes an employee resignation when “an employee terminated employment with or without notice because the employer made continued employment intolerable for the employee.”

And when there’s a dismissal, it has to be a fair one or the employer is in for a very expensive lesson. As we shall see …

The three requirements for “constructive dismissal”?

As confirmed in the Labour Court judgment we discuss below, there are three requirements for constructive dismissal to be established, all three of which must be proved by the employee –

1. The employee must have terminated the contract of employment, and 
2. The reason for termination of the contract must be that continued employment has become intolerable for the employee, and
3. It must have been the employee’s employer who had made continued employment intolerable.

Note that there is no constructive dismissal if an employee resigns for any other reason, for example “because he cannot stand working in a particular workplace or for a certain company and that is not due to any conduct on the part of the employer.”

And a test for “intolerability”

“Intolerability”, said the Court, “is a high threshold, far more than just a difficult, unpleasant or stressful working environment or employment conditions, or for that matter an obnoxious, rude and uncompromising superior who may treat employees badly. Put otherwise, intolerability entails an unendurable or agonising circumstance marked by the conduct of the employer that must have brought the employee’s tolerance to a breaking point.”

The case of the specialist fraud and risk investigator in a bullet proof vest

• A specialist fraud and risk investigator resigned from his employment with a bank after 17 years’ service, then successfully referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration), claiming constructive dismissal.
• Suffering health problems and involved in high-risk investigatory work which put his physical security at risk (hence no doubt his wearing a bullet-proof vest), he claimed to have been subjected to ongoing victimisation, bullying and harassment. His complaints included grievance disputes not being attended to, refusal of compassionate leave, poor work performance assessments, disciplinary and incapacity proceedings – the list goes on.
• Finding on the facts that there was “an accretion of conduct creating an increasingly oppressive work relationship for [the employee], with no functioning mechanism available to halt the deterioration”, the Court held that the employer had made the employment relationship intolerable. The employee was entitled to regard his resignation as a constructive dismissal and, that dismissal being an unfair one, the Court confirmed the CCMA’s compensation award of ten months’ remuneration.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“MTl’s business clearly amounted to an unlawful ponzi-scheme, i.e. a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return to investors and generating returns for earlier investors with investments taken from later investors.” (Extract from the MTI judgment)

Recent media reports of the MTI (Mirror Trading International) liquidators making repayment demands of investors highlight once again the dangers of falling for “too good to be true” investment schemes.

The problem is that by their very nature, all pyramid schemes (including “ponzi” schemes) eventually fail, leaving the vast majority of investors with nothing but the hope of being awarded a partial dividend on their claims when the holding entity is eventually liquidated.

But what if an investor is one of the “lucky early birds” who got paid out before the scheme’s collapse?

Debunking the “early bird investor catches the worm” myth

A common myth is that the only losers in a collapsed pyramid scheme are those investors who didn’t get their money out in time, and that the “early birds” who did act quickly are winners in the equation.

The problem for them is that liquidators have wide powers to reclaim payouts made to investors (as creditors) before liquidation. The idea is that payouts by definition come from new money paid in by new investors, and that to be fair to them it is necessary to put everything back into the pot for all investors and other creditors to share according to their claims. But of course they only share in what’s left after all the liquidation costs and fees have been settled, and in a large and complex liquidation like MTI’s those costs will be particularly substantial.

The practical issue is that whatever was paid out to investors/creditors – both by way of the original investment and the “profit” on it – is likely to be claimed back by the liquidator. And the investor forced to repay everything is left with nothing but a concurrent claim in the liquidation.

Of course a liquidator’s prospects of recovery will be boosted if they can obtain a court declaration of unlawfulness of the scheme and invalidity of the investment contracts (as has already happened in the MTI liquidation), but let’s see how that could then play out in practice.

The liquidator’s options for recovery

To summarise the options available to a liquidator in recovering payouts made before liquidation –

• “Voidable preference”: If the payout was made within six months prior to liquidation and immediately thereafter the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets, it is repayable to the liquidator unless the investor can prove that that the disposition was made “in the ordinary course of business” and without intention to prefer one creditor above another. That could be hard to prove in the case of a pyramid scheme.
• “Undue preference”: If at any time a payout was made by the company with the intention of preferring one creditor above another, it is repayable to the liquidator if the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets at that stage. In this case, the onus is on the liquidator to prove the intention to prefer, but that may perhaps be easier to prove in a pyramid scheme scenario than in other corporate failure scenarios.
• “Disposition without value”: Monies paid out to a creditor at any time must be repaid to the liquidator if the company received no “value” in return, subject to –
  •  Where the payout was made more than two years prior to liquidation, the liquidator must prove that immediately thereafter the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets.
  • But if the payout was made within those two years, the onus switches to the creditor to prove that immediately thereafter the company’s assets exceeded its liabilities. In the case of a pyramid scheme that may be impossible to prove.

  Note that the creditor in such a case will also generally lose their claim against the company.

• “Collusive dealing”: If the liquidator can prove that a creditor colluded with the company to pay out monies with the effect of prejudicing creditors or of preferring one creditor above another, the colluder will not only forfeit their claim but can also be ordered to pay in a penalty of up to the same amount. A liquidator could for example try to prove that the investor/creditor was aware of the unlawfulness of the scheme at the time of the payout.

Even worse, could investors lose a lot more than they put in?

Media reports suggest that an MTI investor, who invested R20,000 and was paid out R21,000 shortly before liquidation, received a demand from the liquidators to repay not just his initial investment and profit, but for 600% of what he put in. The sum claimed (at date of writing) is R122,000, that being the current value of the bitcoin he initially invested – the argument being presumably that what was disposed of was “property” (bitcoin), in which case the liquidators would be entitled to reclaim either the bitcoin or its value at the date the disposition is set aside. The justification will no doubt be that that is what the company and its creditors as a whole have actually lost as a result of the disposition. If our courts agree with that view, being sued for a great deal more than the original investment will be a particular risk when the investment is a volatile asset like bitcoin.

The High Court has previously declared MTI an illegal and unlawful scheme and all agreements between it and investors unlawful and void, but that of course is only the first step for the liquidators in proving their claims against investors. Media reports suggest that many investors are lawyering up to oppose the claims so we must wait and see how it all plays out in the courts.

Regardless, the risk of not only losing the original investment but then also having to cough up a great deal more over and above that certainly does fire yet another warning shot across the bows of anyone tempted to invest in any scheme promising unrealistic returns. Prospective investors shouldn’t part with a cent until they confirm that the scheme is actually legitimate.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

The National Minimum Wage (NMW) for each “ordinary hour worked” has been increased from 1 March 2024 by 8.5% from R25-42 to R27-58.

Domestic Workers: Assuming a work month of 21 days x 8 hours per day, R27-58 per hour equates to R220-64 per day or R4,633-44 per month. The Living Wage calculator will help you check whether or not you are actually paying your domestic worker enough to cover a household’s “minimal need” (adjust the “Assumptions” in the calculator to ensure that the figures used are up to date).

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

The unchanged transfer duty and tax tables, with a note on fiscal drag

Unchanged from last year, so taxpayers can breathe a sigh of relief that rates have not been increased as many forecasters had feared.

But the other side of the coin of course is that there is no inflation adjustment to the rates this year, which means that “fiscal drag” will leave you paying more tax if your inflation-linked increase pushes you into a higher tax bracket. Effectively, the buying power of your net income will fall. Plus if your property has increased in value into a higher threshold, your buyer will pay more transfer duty.

 

Source: SARS

Source: SARS

“Sin taxes” up – the details

Source: National Treasury

Retirement funding and the “two-pot” reform proposal

Source: SARS

Source: SARS

The proposed “two-pot” retirement reform: Per National Treasury: “Early access to retirement funds – “The two-pot retirement system will allow retirement fund members to make withdrawals from their retirement funds while they are still active members, so members need not resign to access part of their retirement benefits. … This reform is proposed to come into effect on 1 September 2024. The National Treasury aims to finalise the legislative process rapidly in the next few months to ensure that industry and regulators can prepare for implementation. Policy research and engagement continues on the outstanding auto-enrolment, mandatory enrolment and consolidation retirement reforms.”

The proposals and their tax implications are complex and subject to change, but currently provide for a one-off withdrawal of up to R30,000 on implementation, and thereafter annual “savings withdrawal benefits”.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“No person shall without the prior approval in writing of the local authority in question, erect any building in respect of which plans and specifications are to be drawn and submitted in terms of this Act.” (National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act)

Here’s a nightmare scenario for a buyer – you move into your new dream home, and only then find out that your lovely little office/spare bedroom extension has no approved building plans. The municipality says the seller’s building works were unapproved and unlawful – you must demolish the extension.

How can you guard against that happening to you?

Planning permission is legally required before building

Firstly, local authority planning permission is a legal requirement before any building works, renovations or extensions can take place. You will need to check with your local municipality what its particular requirements are, and what “minor” works are exempt from this requirement in your area.

Without municipal permission, you have an unlawful structure on your hands – a recipe for disaster.

The problem for a buyer is that, once the transfer is through and you are the registered owner, it is to you as buyer that the municipality will look to obtain any outstanding building authorities and plans, to pay any penalties for non-compliance, and possibly even to demolish the unlawful structures.

The seller isn’t obliged to supply proof (and plans) to you, unless…

Your risk as buyer is that the seller is only obliged to supply proof of planning permission and approved plans to you if that is specifically required by the sale agreement. Ideally ask for plans before you even put your offer in, otherwise insist on a clear clause in the agreement requiring the seller to produce the plans before transfer. It’s the only way to avoid the risk of having to rectify unlawful structures.

Make sure it is clear that the seller (not you) must get and produce the plans

A 2023 High Court decision addressed a claim by buyers who had at the negotiation stage noticed newly erected buildings in respect of which they were advised that building plans were at the ‘approval stage’ with the municipality. Accordingly, the sale agreement provided that the sale was subject to approval of building plans by the municipality.

What the deed of sale did not specify was who had to get the plan approval – was it the buyer, or the seller?

The Court ultimately declared the seller responsible for obtaining the plans on the basis that by default only a landowner can apply for approval and plans, but that victory for the buyer came only after a hard-fought court battle – avoid all that delay, cost and dispute with an upfront clause clearly putting the obligation on the seller.

When you have the plans, check them against all structures

Plans in hand, check that all the buildings and structures actually on the property tie in with the municipal approvals and plans. It’s not uncommon to find plans are outdated or inaccurate. Sometimes regulations have changed, sometimes owners chance their luck or have just overlooked the need to keep plans updated as renovations and extensions take place. And whilst the municipality may accept “minor” deviations from plans, you should be sure of what is acceptable and what isn’t before you take transfer. First prize here of course is updated “as-built” plans showing the construction as it exists after completion – you’ll probably need them anyway if you do renovations down the line.

Sellers – why should you have the plans ready to offer them to the buyer?

The other side of the coin of course is that as a seller, even though you aren’t legally required to do so, it makes a lot of sense to have on hand copies of all building approvals and plans before you sell –

• As a sales tactic you can now reassure prospective buyers that all structures are lawfully constructed.
• You will avoid delay if the bank granting the buyer a mortgage bond decides it wants copies of plans as part of its approval process. That’s exactly what happened in the High Court case discussed above, delaying transfer substantially.
• You will also be reassuring yourself that all necessary approvals and plans were in fact obtained at the time of construction. If it turns out for example that you or a previous owner inadvertently dropped the ball in that regard, a disaffected buyer will try to pin all the blame on you.  You might even be accused of fraudulently concealing a lack of plans – in which event the standard “voetstoots” (“as is”) clause won’t protect you. There’s no risk of any of that if you have the actual plans on hand from the start.
• In any event the “Mandatory Disclosure Form” that you must attach to the sale agreement specifically requires you to certify that the necessary consents, permissions and permits were obtained for any additions/improvements etc. Attaching the actual approvals and plans is the best way to cover you in the event of any dispute down the line.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“Marriage is the chief cause of divorce” (Groucho Marx)

This Valentine’s Day, think about the legal aspects of your romantic relationship. They’re a lot less exciting than the traditional declarations of love backed up by chocolates and flowers, but they’re just as important in ensuring a strong, committed life partnership in which both of you is clear as to how your respective financial and legal responsibilities are defined.

A recent High Court decision once again puts a spotlight on the fact that “life partner” couples are at ongoing legal and financial risk unless they sign both cohabitation agreements and updated wills.

The problem – there’s no such thing as a “common law marriage”

Our law does not recognise the concept of a “common law marriage”. Either you are formally married, or you miss out on many of the legal protections available to married couples. The result – if you split, or when (not if) one of you dies, the less financially strong life partner could well be prejudiced, perhaps even left destitute after many decades of life together.

The solution – a cohabitation agreement with updated wills

Luckily these two documents give both of you quick and effective protection –

1. A cohabitation agreement tailored to meet your particular circumstances and needs. It should at the minimum cover questions such as whose name assets and liabilities will be in, who will cover what expenses, how you will split your financial affairs if you part ways, your undertakings to each other regarding financial support and maintenance, parental rights and duties regarding children and so on.
2. A will (“Last Will and Testament”). You could make two separate wills or one joint one but either way make sure to comply with all formalities to ensure validity and set out your respective wishes clearly and unambiguously. A vital (and all-too-often overlooked) aspect here is to diarise regular reviews of your will/s in case they need updating to take account of ongoing life and financial changes.

Let’s turn now to a “second prize” alternative – proving a “universal partnership”.

What is a “universal partnership” and how do you prove it?

If for whatever reason you don’t have both a cohabitation agreement and wills in place, you may still have a “get out of jail free” card in the form of a universal partnership.

These extracts from the High Court judgment (formatting supplied) set out what you’ll need to prove –

• “A universal partnership is an agreement between individuals to share their property and their gains and losses. The partnership need not be formed for a commercial purpose.
• It regularly comes into existence, whether expressly or tacitly, between unmarried cohabitees, although cohabitation is not essential.
• The requirements for the existence of a universal partnership are the same as those for partnership in general.
• Where a tacit universal partnership is alleged, a court will confirm its existence if the conduct of the parties is such that it is more probable than not that such a partnership agreement had been reached between them.
• A partnership exists if “each of the parties brings something into the partnership or binds themselves to bring something into it, whether it be money, or labour, or skill”; if the agreement is struck for “the joint benefit of both parties”; and if the object of the partnership is material gain.
• The question is … whether, on evaluating those facts as a whole, the probable inference is that there was a universal partnership.”

A bitter family fight shows why it’s second prize

• In the case in question, life partners had for 26 years shared all their assets “akin to a marriage in community of property”. Importantly, they had shared the “benefits and burdens” of a number of property development ventures. They had, said the Court, each brought something into the partnership, her contribution being mostly financial, his (as an architect) mostly in “sweat equity”. Their partnership was not just a life partnership, it “was also plainly at least partly about material gain.”
• Their relationship was terminated by the death of the one partner, who died “intestate” (leaving no will in place) after developing dementia. The other partner had suggested they each execute wills leaving everything to each other and he had done so, but she had declined as she was unwilling to contemplate her mortality
• Her daughter as executor of her mother’s deceased estate refused to recognise any claim by the surviving life partner. Quarrels and evictions followed, with ultimately a hard-fought High Court battle.
• The Court found that the survivor had on the facts succeeded in proving the existence of a universal partnership. Critically, it held that the parties’ partnership “was also plainly at least partly about material gain” and that the surviving partner should anyway inherit half of the deceased’s estate in terms of a principle previously accepted by our courts that “partners in a permanent life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support are entitled to inherit as spouses would.”
• Accordingly, the survivor gets a full half of the deceased partner’s entire estate, whilst the daughter is removed as executor and ordered her to pay the legal costs.

The winner is…

The bottom line however is that the element of “material gain” which so clearly applied to the joint acquisition of assets in this particular life partnership will be absent (or at least extremely difficult to prove) in many other cohabitation agreements.

First prize must therefore always be to avoid the risks, delay, stress and cost of trying to prove the existence of a universal partnership and/or reciprocal duties of support by having in place both a comprehensive cohabitation agreement and a joint will or reciprocal wills.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“It’s the profile of the most trusted individual, in a position of trust, like an accountant or bookkeeper. They usually never take leave, and someone who never allows anyone access to their system would go to the length of taking their laptops with them while they are on holiday so that they can continue working. They are usually caught in the moment of forced absence from work.” (Specialised Commercial Crimes Court as reported by News24)

Our courts report a surge in serious cases of theft from employers by their most trusted employees – often bookkeepers and accountants. The greater the trust placed in these dishonest individuals, the more they steal and the longer they get away with it.

Particularly in more serious cases, employers should lay criminal charges as well as instituting disciplinary proceedings. Criminal courts are imposing hefty deterrent sentences, and the Labour Court has confirmed that laying charges does not prejudice the simultaneous disciplinary process.

Minimum sentences apply

Firstly, minimum sentencing provisions apply when large amounts have been stolen. Even first offenders must be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment for any fraud or theft involving more than R500,000 (R100,000 for persons acting together or R10,000 for law enforcement officers) unless “substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify the imposition of a lesser sentence”.

Let’s look at some recent cases –

• 50 years for a R537m theft: Over some two decades of employment in a position of trust as an accountant, an employee admitted to 336 counts relating to thefts totalling an astonishing R537m. She had tried to cover up with fraudulent VAT claims and although her lavish lifestyle (she spent R5m on one specific day) attracted attention, it seems that it was only an anonymous tip off that eventually led to her detection and arrest. She was sentenced by a Specialised Commercial Crimes Court (SCCC) to 50 years behind bars.
• 10 years for a R13.4m fraud: A creditor’s clerk, once again in a position of trust, pleaded guilty to 972 counts of fraud totalling over R13.4m and stretching over 9 years, only discovered when she went on sick leave. The mitigating factors in her case (she has health issues and is 65 years old) led the High Court to reduce her 15-year sentence to a below-the-minimum 10 years.
• 18 years for a R14m theft: A financial manager stole over R14m, leaving the couple who had trusted him with their finances without their life savings (including a cancer diagnosis payout) and on their knees financially and emotionally. The Court’s sentence of 3 years more than the minimum reflected its finding that the aggravating factors justified removing the manager from society, despite his gambling addiction and previous clean record.
• 15 to 30 years for a R52m fraud? A trusted store accountant “viewed as a brother” by its traumatised owners (one of whom even contemplated suicide), admitted to two counts of fraud totalling R52m as a result of his gambling addiction. He will only be sentenced in March, but it seems from media reports that he is unlikely to receive less than the minimum 15 years’ imprisonment per count, possibly to run concurrently.

The Labour Court confirms you can do both

A municipal manager with 15 years’ service was criminally charged with very serious frauds. He asked the Labour Court to stop his employer’s disciplinary process against him, arguing that in defending himself at the disciplinary hearing he might have to give self-incriminating evidence.

The Labour Court disagreed, finding that the employee had several layers of protection available to him in the criminal trial, and clearing the employer to proceed with the disciplinary hearing simultaneously. In fact, said the Court, “It is tantamount to an abuse of court process by a person holding a managerial position using court processes to prevent his employer from subjecting him to a disciplinary process under the guise of protecting his constitutional rights.” It accordingly ordered him to pay all costs on the punitive attorney and client scale – a very unusual censure in labour law matters where both sides are normally left to cover their own costs.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Loadshedding continues to plague us and our businesses, and when tenants are connected during power cuts to their landlord’s alternative power source – such as a generator – it is essential for both parties to understand their respective rights.

Lights out for a shopping mall gym

• An upmarket gym had relied for years on its shopping mall landlord’s generator to get through loadshedding, without having to pay extra for it.
• “Out of the blue” the landlord demanded a monthly “diesel recovery levy”, and a dispute arose over whether it was entitled to do so or whether the cost was already covered by an existing “all-inclusive monthly fee for all expenses related to the lease of the premises”.
• The parties agreed to refer that dispute to arbitration but then the landlord decided to flex its muscles by cutting off the gym’s connection to the generator.
• The gym obtained an urgent reconnection order from the High Court. Although that is only a temporary solution for the tenant (it must still win the arbitration or pay the extra levy), the Court’s decision is a significant one in that it has confirmed the principle that access to an alternative source of power does fall under the protection of the “spoliation” principle.

“Spoliation” – no one can take the law into their own hands

No one can go the self-help route and take the law into their own hands by removing property from someone else without a court order. Anyone deprived of possession like that can urgently obtain a “spoliation” order forcing an immediate return to it of the property.

At this stage, the court won’t be interested in who has the legal right to the property – all it will look at is whether –

1. The possessor was in “peaceful and undisturbed possession” and
2. It was unlawfully deprived of that possession.

That’s straightforward with possession of a “corporeal” thing like a car, or a house, or a parrot. But when it comes to an “incorporeal” like access to an alternative energy source, things become more complicated. Now you must prove that you had “quasi-possession” of the power supply.

As complicated as that may sound, what’s important on a practical level for both landlords and tenants is that this judgment has confirmed in principle that access to an alternative power supply such as a generator falls under the law’s protection as much as possession of a corporeal “thing”.

The bottom line

Whether or not a tenant has an enforceable right to its landlord’s alternative power supply – and if so whether it must pay extra for it – will depend on the wording of the lease.

But the landlord cannot just cut off an existing power supply without following legal process.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“A bad neighbour is as great a calamity as a good one is a great advantage”. (Hesiod, poet of Ancient Greece)

Your neighbour’s business is driving you to distraction. Perhaps it’s loud all-night music, or an invasion of your hard-earned privacy, or illegal parking in your driveway, but regardless of what the nuisance factor is, it really is untenable. You’ve tried everything you can think of to sort it out amicably – polite requests, offers of mediation, compromise proposals. Nothing has worked, and the nightmare continues.

So, it’s off to court you go. Legal action is never first prize when it comes to long-term relationships with neighbours, but if they leave you with no other alternative, take heart from two recent High Court cases. In both, businesses being operated by neighbours in contravention of land use laws were penalised for doing so.

Noisy nightclubs shut down … with some harsh words for the landlord

• A university residence was subjected to noise from nearby nightclubs, with students complaining that loud music prevented them from sleeping and studying until the early hours of the morning.
• The establishments were on property zoned “Use 6: Business 1″ which allowed for the use of the premises as a “Place of Refreshment”, such as a café or bar. But these particular businesses fell into the municipality’s definition of “nightclub”, which put them into the “Place of Amusement” category – for which they were not zoned.
• They argued that their “tavern” liquor licences obliged them to provide entertainment and therefore allowed them a secondary use of the premises as a “Place of Amusement”. The Court disagreed: “the terms of the liquor licence can never override the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme”.
• The premises were accordingly being used outside of their land use rights and were prohibited from continuing to do so, i.e. the nightclubs must close down. If they convert to just being “pubs” they are prohibited from making any noise in excess of the noise levels permitted by the land use rights of the premises.
• Finally, the Court had a harsh word or two for the landlord of the premises in question, which had, it said, remained “supine” rather than enforcing a clause in the lease prohibiting the tenants from creating any nuisance to neighbours. The landlord was accordingly ordered to take “all reasonable measures” to stop its tenants from making a noise nuisance, plus it must pay a share of the costs. That’s a clear warning to all landlords that they risk liability for their tenants’ wrongdoing.

Approvals for a seaside guest house set aside

• The owner of a seaside property realised that not only were her neighbours running a seven-room guest house without municipal permission, but that they planned to go double story with it. “There”, she thought, “goes my privacy”.
• She also feared the negative impact of a guest house on the general character of the area, on traffic volumes and on stormwater management, particularly in light of the guest house’s plan to increase its size to eight suites with parking for sixteen cars.
• The guest house owners had applied to the local authority for a permanent departure from the zoning scheme conditions (their house being zoned “single residential”) and for the removal of restrictive conditions attached to the title deed. The municipality refused to remove the title deed restrictions but granted a conditional approval for the operation of a guest house.
• The homeowner was having none of that and took the matter to the High Court, which found that the local town planning scheme in force at the time (before a new scheme was adopted) did not empower the municipality to grant approval for building or running a guest house on the property. The Court set aside the municipal approvals.
• Both the development and the operation of a guest house on the neighbour’s property were thus declared unlawful. The neighbour, if it still wants to operate the guest house, must now make new applications to the municipality under the “new” town planning scheme for the area. That’s Round 1 to the homeowner, and an expensive lesson for the neighbour.

Before you buy a property…

Whether you plan to run a business from the property you are about to buy or are worried that one of your new neighbours might do so in the future, check what zoning and land use restrictions apply to your respective properties before you put pen to paper!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews