Harold Noik v Rocklands Body Corporate and Accommodation Shop CC

The applicant, Harold Noik, is the owner of section 33 in the Rocklands sectional title scheme and therefore a member of the Rocklands Body Corporate. He challenged the body corporate’s levy determination following the annual general meeting held on 8 June 2023. His complaint was that levies for the 2024 financial year had been impermissibly "backdated". The respondents explained that the scheme’s financial year ran from 1 March to 28 February, while the AGM was held later, and that the annual budget had to align with the financial year rather than the AGM date. The budget was circulated to owners before the AGM, discussed in detail at the AGM, and unanimously approved by the owners present. The trustees thereafter resolved the total levy contribution for each owner for the full financial year, taking into account amounts already paid from March to June, with the remaining balance payable in instalments from July to February. The second respondent, the managing agent, stated that it had merely acted on the trustees’ instructions and had been incorrectly cited.

• Whether the levy contributions approved for the 2024 financial year were unlawfully or unreasonably "backdated".
• Whether the contribution levied, or the manner in which it was to be paid, was incorrectly determined or unreasonable under section 39(1)(c) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the managing agent had failed to comply with its contract of appointment or any applicable code of conduct, justifying relief under section 39(5)(a) of the CSOS Act.
• Whether the application was without substance and liable to dismissal under section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act.

The application was dismissed in terms of section 53(1)(a) of the CSOS Act as being without substance. No costs order was made; each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

In a sectional title scheme, trustees may determine the manner and timing of payment of levy contributions for a financial year, and neither the STSMA nor the Prescribed Management Rules require levy recovery to occur in twelve equal monthly instalments, so long as the levies are lawfully determined and recovered within that financial year. Where amounts already paid are credited toward an owner’s annual contribution and the budget and levy process have been properly followed, a complaint that levies were impermissibly "backdated" is without substance. CSOS adjudicators may grant relief only within the confines of section 39 of the CSOS Act.

The adjudicator observed that the managing agent acts under the supervision of the trustees in terms of a management contract and that such a contract may only be cancelled before expiry by special resolution of members at a general meeting. The adjudicator also remarked that the application was misconceived rather than frivolous or vexatious, and therefore no adverse costs order was appropriate. No further substantial obiter dicta appears from the text.

This matter is significant in the community schemes and sectional titles context because it confirms that levy determinations must be assessed with reference to the scheme’s financial year and the trustees’ statutory powers, rather than by assuming that levies must always be raised in twelve equal monthly instalments. It illustrates the limited statutory jurisdiction of CSOS adjudicators, who may grant only the remedies authorised by section 39 of the CSOS Act. The decision also shows that dissatisfaction with the timing or structure of levy payments will not succeed where the body corporate has followed the statutory and rule-based budgeting process and credited prior payments appropriately.