George v Trustees of Telford Court Body Corporate

The applicant, Bjorn George, is the registered owner of a unit in Telford Court Body Corporate. During load shedding on 8 February 2023, a security guard informed him that the use of a generator was not allowed. Thereafter, fines were issued by the managing agent on behalf of the body corporate on 12 February 2023 and again on 22 and 23 February 2023. The applicant contended that the body corporate did not permit residents to use personal generators or solar panels, despite power interruptions affecting security gates and other services during higher stages of load shedding. He stated that his generator was an inverter-type generator, allegedly non-polluting, and not located on common property, and that several owners wanted the relevant rule changed. He sought relief from the Community Schemes Ombud Service declaring, in effect, that generators should be allowed during load shedding until 20h00 so residents could use heavy equipment while renovating or working in their units. The respondent body corporate opposed the application, relying on conduct rule 8.4 prohibiting unacceptable or unreasonable noise disturbing surrounding units, and stating that generators were not permitted on common property or to be linked to units, save for an estate generator at the main gate for essential services. The respondent also said complaints had been received from neighbouring units about the applicant's generator, which allegedly sat on common property regularly.

• Whether the applicant was entitled under section 39(4)(c) of the CSOS Act to an order invalidating or interfering with the body corporate's decision/rule prohibiting generator use.
• Whether the body corporate's conduct rule 8.4, prohibiting unacceptable or unreasonable noise disturbing neighbouring units, validly applied to the applicant's use of a generator during load shedding.
• Whether the trustees acted reasonably and in the interests of the scheme in enforcing the conduct rules and issuing penalties for generator use.
• Whether the applicant established on a balance of probabilities that generators should be permitted in the scheme during load shedding up to 20h00.

The application was dismissed. The adjudicator ordered that the relief sought by the applicant be refused, stating that the application was dismissed in terms of section 51(a) of the CSOS Act as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and without substance. No order as to costs was made.

A body corporate's duly applicable conduct rules are binding on owners and occupiers, and trustees are entitled to enforce them where they are objectively reasonable and serve the interests of the scheme. A resident seeking CSOS relief to permit conduct inconsistent with those rules bears the onus of showing, on a balance of probabilities, a lawful basis for such relief. Where the applicant fails to justify interference with the enforcement of a reasonable noise-related rule, the application must be dismissed.

The adjudicator made broader observations, with reference to case law, that the relationship between owners and community schemes is contractual in nature but grounded in statutory authority, and that owners who choose to buy into such schemes generally accept the constraints imposed by management and conduct rules. The adjudicator also noted, in passing, the applicant's implied concession that there had been no unanimous resolution regarding generator use, although that observation was not developed into a fully independent basis for the order.

The decision reaffirms that conduct rules of sectional title schemes and bodies corporate are binding on owners and occupiers and will generally be enforced where they are reasonable and directed at the orderly administration of the scheme. It also illustrates the CSOS adjudicative approach to disputes about nuisance, noise, and owner use of private and common property during load shedding. The case is significant for confirming that residents cannot unilaterally override scheme rules on practical convenience grounds and that relief under the CSOS Act will be refused where the applicant does not establish, on the papers, a basis to invalidate the scheme's decision or rule application.