Browsed by
Month: October 2014

PERSONEELNUUS

PERSONEELNUUS

MHI VIER SY 15 DE VERJAARSDAG!

1

We celebrated our birthday with a cocktail evening at  Cassia Restaurant’s beautiful Saffron venue. Joining us for this special occasion were the true guests of honor: our property developers, agents and friends.

Stefanus Malherbe het die toesprake gelei waarna Chris Faure ons met ‘n oorsig oor die afgelope jare herinner het aan Koos Doep se bekende liedjie, ”Dit is alles net genade”.  Jurgens Tubb het die heildronk ingestel op ‘n voortreflike toekoms.

A great thank you to You, our valued clients for supporting us during the past 15 years.

Ons sien uit na nog ‘n uitmuntende 15!

CHRIS WORD 60!

7Chris’ 60th birthday was celebrated with a Surprise party in the boardroom. He was very touched by everyone’s warm wishes and the special gift put together by the staff.

Here seen with his article clerk Michelle and his secretary, Ansie.

 

 

 

BASEDAG

Aangesien Basedag dieselfde dag was as ons Klientefunksie, is die manne vooraf reeds verras met ‘n heerlike piekniek in die park.

PROKUREURS-EKSAMEN

Ons tweedejaars klerk, Melanie Visagie het ook goeie uitslae met haar onlangse eksamen behaal en sal eersdaags toegelaat kan word as prokureur. Welgedaan, ons is trots op jou!

WHAT HAPPENED TO CC’S?

WHAT HAPPENED TO CC’S?

A1blYou are a member of a Close Corporation (“CC”) in whose name you are running a business, or in whose name one or more properties are registered.

You were informed that the incorporation of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Act”) on 1 May 2011 caused various amendments to the current operation of a CC, as well as the future of CC’s in it’s entirety.  What is the impact of this?

With the incorporation of the Act 71 of 2008 the old Companies Act of 1973 was repealed and certain amendments to the current Close Corporations Act, Act 69 of 1984, were also effected.  The Close Corporations Act in it’s amended form remains in existence together with the new Act.

The coming of existence of the Act has the following legal consequences of which all CC members must be aware of:

The Act makes provision for the continued existence of currently registered CC’s but negates the registration of any new CC’s after 1 May 2011.  Current shelf CC’s that were duly incorporated and which is normally bought by a small business entrepreneur for utilization in a future business venture, will remain to exist as these CC’s were already incorporated on the date that the Act came into existence.  The incorporation of new CC’s are prohibited, and accordingly it will also no longer be possible to create any new shelf CC’s.

The Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office (“CIPRO”) was the statutory body responsible for the registration of all new CC’s and companies prior to the Act coming into operation.  This function has simultaneously been inherited by a new statutory body namely, the Companies Intellectual Property Commission (“CIPC”).  Lastmentioned body provides a complete historic database and record of administration of all existing CC’s and companies.  Any amendments to CC’s after the incorporation of the Act will be registered at CIPC and will duly be reflected on their database.

The Act does not force CC’s to convert to private companies.  However, this is encouraged due to simplified legislation, reduction of regulatory burden and the simplicity of formation of companies that the Act offers.  Under the said Act the CC is mainly being replaced by the private company as the preferred vehicle for small and medium businesses in the sense that a private company can be formed by only one person, and that said company does not need to have more than one director.

Current CC’s are being assisted in the process of conversion to a private company by the Act.  In lastmentioned instance all that is needed is the official notice of conversion, a certified copy of the special resolutions to authorise the conversion, the Memorandum of Incorporation and payment of the prescribed fee.  Current companies are prohibited to convert to CC’s.

The Act and the current Close Corporations Act will find application concurrently to each other, as mentioned earlier in this article.  The Act furthermore requires that CC’s comply with all the stipulations of the Act.  This means for example that all the stipulations relating to the so-called business rescue procedures will mutatis mutandis be applicable to CC’s, as well as certain stipulations relating to financial statements. CC’s (depending on its size), can be statutory compelled to provide audited financial statements in certain instances.

Depending on the current use of your CC, as well as your future plans with said legal person, we would advise that you obtain the opinion of your bookkeeper or auditor, in conjunction with your lawyer to ensure that you comply with the provisions of the Act, as well as whether you need to consider the conversion of your CC to a private company.  This will provide you with a realistic idea whether you are currently utilizing your CC to it’s maximum benefit. 

Compiled by: Marcelle Strydom

REFERENCE LIST: 

  1. The Future of Close Corporations – issued by CIPRO
  2. New Companies Act’s Effects on Close Corporation – issued by Trademar 24

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

WAT HET VAN BK’S GEWORD?

WAT HET VAN BK’S GEWORD?

A1blU is lid van ‘n Beslote Korporasie (“BK”) in wie se naam ‘n besigheid bedryf word, of waarin een of meer eiendomme geregistreer is.

U het gehoor dat die inwerkingtreding van die nuwe Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 (“die Wet”) op 1 Mei 2011 bepaalde wysigings op die bestaande werking van ‘n BK, sowel as die toekoms van BK’s in geheel meebring.  Hoe nou gemaak?

Met die inwerkingtreding van die Wet is die ou Maatskappywet van 1973 herroep en het dit ook sekere wysigings aan die bestaande Wet op Beslote Korporasies, Wet 69 van 1984 meegebring.  Die Wet op Beslote Korporasies in sy gewysigde vorm bly egter voortbestaan tesame met die nuwe Wet.

Die totstandkoming van die nuwe Wet het die volgende regsgevolge waarvan elke BK-lid bewus moet wees:

Dit maak voorsiening vir die voortbestaan van reeds bestaande, geregistreerde BK’s maar verhoed die registrasie van enige nuwe BK’s na 1 Mei 2011.  So ook sal bestaande rak BK’s wat reeds geinkorporeer is en gewoonlik deur ‘n klein besigheids entrepreneur gekoop is vir gebruik in ‘n toekomstige beplande onderneming, bly voortbestaan. Die inkorporasie van nuwe BK’s na inwerkingtreding van die Wet is ontoelaatbaar, en die skep van enige nuwe rak BK’s dus ook nie langer moontlik nie.

Die “Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office” (“CIPRO”) is die statutêre liggaam wat verantwoordelik was vir die registrasie van alle nuwe BK’s en maatskappye voor die totstandkoming van die Wet.  Hierdie funksie is gelyktydig oorgeneem deur die nuwe statutêre liggaam, “Companies Intellectual Property Commission” (“CIPC”).  Laasgenoemde liggaam beskik oor ‘n volledige databasis en geskiedkundige administratiewe rekord van alle  bestaande BK’s en Maatskappye.  Enige wysigings aan BK’s wat na die Wet se inwerkingtreding deur CIPC hanteer is, sal dienooreenkomstig op hulle databasis geregistreer wees.

Alhoewel die Wet nie BK’s verplig om na maatskappye om te skakel nie, word dit egter stilswyend daarin aangemoedig deurdat die wetgewing vereenvoudig is, die reguleerbare laste op maatskappy verminder is en die registrasieproses vir ‘n maatskappy ook vereenvoudig is.  Onder die nuwe Wet vervang die private maatskappy grotendeels die BK as die voorkeur voertuig vir klein en medium grootte besighede in dié sin dat ‘n private maatskappy slegs deur een persoon gevorm kan word, en dat dit nie meer as een direkteur hoef te hê nie.

Die Wet ondersteun bestaande BK’s in die proses van omskakeling van ‘n BK na ‘n private maatskappy.  Om so ‘n omskakeling te bewerkstellig, word ‘n amptelike kennisgewing van omskakeling, ‘n gesertifiseerde afskrif van die spesiale resolusies om die omskakeling te magtig, ‘n nuwe Memorandum van Inkorporasie sowel as die voorgeskrewe fooi vir omskakeling, benodig.  Bykomend hiertoe word bestaande private maatskappye nie meer toegelaat word om na BK’s om te skakel nie.

Soos reeds voorheen in die artikel genoem, sal die Wet en die bestaande Wet op Beslote Korporasies gelyklopend met mekaar toepassing vind.  Die Wet vereis dat BK’s moet voldoen aan alle nuwe bepalings daarvan. ‘n Voorbeeld hiervan is die bepalings verbonde aan sogenaamde “business rescue” prosedures asook sekere vereistes rakende finansiële state.  ‘n BK (afhangende van sy grootte) kan dus moontlik ingevolge die Wet statutêr verplig  word om geouditeerde finansiële state op te stel.

Afhangende van die bestaande gebruik van u BK, asook wat u toekomsplanne met sodanige regspersoon sou wees, word u aangeraai om die nodige advies van u rekenmeester of ouditeur, in samewerking met u prokureur in te win ten einde seker te maak dat u voldoen aan al die vereistes van die Wet, asook of u ‘n moontlike omskakeling na ‘n privaat maatskappy moet oorweeg.  Dit sal ook aan u ‘n realistiese idee gee of u die maksimum voordele haal uit u huidige BK as regspersoon.

Saamgestel deur: Marcelle Strydom

BRONNELYS:

  1. The Future of Close Corporations – issued by CIPRO
  2. New Companies Act’s Effects on Close Corporation – issued by Trademar 24

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND THE SALE OF A PROPERTY

CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND THE SALE OF A PROPERTY

A2blCapital Gains Tax was introduced on 1 October 2001. Capital Gains Tax is payable on the profit a seller makes when disposing of his property.

What is meant by Capital Gain?

A person’s capital gain on an asset disposed of is the amount by which the proceeds exceed the base cost of that asset.

What is base cost?

The base cost of an asset is what you paid for it, plus the expenditure. The following can be included in calculating the base cost:

  1. The costs of acquiring the property, including the purchase price, transfer costs, transfer duty and professional fees e.g. attorney’s fees and fees paid to a surveyor and auctioneer.
  1. The cost of improvements, alterations and renovations which can be proved by invoices and/or receipts.
  1. The cost of disposing of the property, e.g. advertising costs, cost of obtaining a valuation for capital gains purposes, and estate agents’ commission.

How was base cost of assets held calculated before 1 October 2001?

If the property was acquired before 1 October 2001 you may use one of the following methods to value the property:

  1. 20% x (proceeds less expenditure incurred on or after 1 October 2001).
  1. The market value of the asset as at 1 October 2001, which valuation must have been obtained before 30 September 2004.
  1. Time-apportionment  base cost method. Original cost + (proceeds – original cost) x number of years held before 1 October 2001 divided by the number of years held before 1 October 2001 + number of years held after 1 October 2001). 

How is Capital Gains Tax paid?

Capital Gains Tax is not a separate tax from income tax. Part of a person’s capital gain is included in his taxable income. It is then subject to normal tax. A portion of the total of the taxpayer’s capital gain less capital losses for the year is included in the taxpayer’s taxable income and taxed in terms of normal tax tables.

How is Capital Gain calculated?

If you are an individual, the first R30 000 of your total capital gain will be disregarded. Then 33.3% of the capital gain made on disposal of the property must be included in the taxable income for the year of assessment in which the property is sold. When the property is owned by a company, a close corporation or an ordinary trust, 66.6% of the capital gain must be included in their taxable income.

Primary residence and Capital Gains Tax

As from 1 March 2012 the first R2 million of any capital gain on the sale of a primary residence is exempted from Capital Gains Tax. This exemption only applies where the property is registered in the name of an individual or in the name of a special trust. The property should furthermore not exceed 2 hectares. If the property is used partially for residential and partially for business purposes, an apportionment must be done.

If more than one person holds an interest in a primary residence, the exclusion will be in proportion to the interest held by each party. For example, if you and your spouse have an equal interest in the primary residence, you will each qualify for a primary residence exclusion of R1 million. You will also be entitled to the annual exclusion, currently R30 000.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

KAPITAALWINSBELASTING EN DIE VERKOOP VAN ‘N EIENDOM

KAPITAALWINSBELASTING EN DIE VERKOOP VAN ‘N EIENDOM

A2blKapitaalwinsbelasting het in werking getree op 1 Oktober 2001. Kapitaalwinsbelasting is betaalbaar op die wins wat ‘n verkoper maak wanneer sy eiendom verkoop word.

Wat beteken Kapitaalwins?

Die bedrag waarmee die opbrengs van ‘n verkoping van ‘n bate die basiskoste oorskry, staan bekend as die kapitaalwins.

Wat is basiskoste?

Die basiskoste van ‘n bate is die bedrag wat vir die bate betaal is plus uitgawes wat aangegaan is. By die berekening van basiskoste kan die volgende koste ingesluit word :

  1. Die koste vir die verkryging van die eiendom, wat insluit die koopsom, oordragkoste, hereregte en professionele fooie van o.a. die prokureurs, die landmeter en die afslaer.
  1. Die koste van verbeterings, veranderinge en opknapping van die eiendom waarvoor daar fakture en/of kwitansies as bewys moet wees.
  1. Die koste van vervreemding van die eiendom, o.a. advertensiekoste, die koste verbonde aan die verkryging van ‘n waardasie vir kapitaalwinsdoeleindes en eiendomsagente-kommissie.

Hoe word die basiskoste bereken in gevalle waar die eiendom voor 1 Oktober 2001 verkry is?

Indien die eiendom voor 1 Oktober 2001 verkry is, kan een van die volgende metodes gebruik word om die waarde van die eiendom te bereken:

  1. 20% x (opbrengs minus uitgawes aangegaan op of na 1 Oktober 2001)
  1. Die markwaarde van die eiendom soos op 1 Oktober 2001 welke waardasie bekom moes wees voor 30 September 2004.
  1. Tydverdeling-basiskoste metode. Die oorspronklike koste + (opbrengs – oorspronklike koste) x aantal jare wat eiendom gehou is voor 1 Oktober 2001 gedeel deur die aantal jare gehou voor 1 Oktober 2001+ aantal jare gehou na 1 Oktober 2001).

Hoe word Kapitaalwinsbelasting betaal?

Kapitaalwinsbelasting is nie ‘n belasting wat addisioneel tot inkomstebelasting betaalbaar is nie. ‘n Gedeelte van ‘n persoon se kapitaalwins word ingesluit in sy belasbare inkomste. Dit sal dan onderhewig wees aan die betaling van normale inkomstebelasting. ‘n Gedeelte van ‘n belastingbetaler se kapitaalwins minus sy kapitaalverliese vir ‘n spesifieke jaar word ingesluit in die belastingbetaler se belasbare inkomste en is as belasting betaalbaar volgens die normale inkomstebelastingtabelle.

Hoe word kapitaalwins bereken?

In geval van ‘n individu word die eerste R30 000 van die totale kapitaalwins buite rekening gelaat. Daarna moet 33.3% van die kapitaalwins wat verkry is by die vervreemding van ‘n eiendom, ingesluit word in die belasbare inkomste van die persoon vir die jaar waarin die eiendom vervreem is. Waar ‘n maatskappy of beslote korporasie of ‘n gewone trust ‘n eiendom besit, word 66.6% van die kapitaalwins ingesluit by die belasbare inkomste.

Primêre eiendom en Kapitaalwinsbelasting

Vanaf 1 Maart 2012 is die eerste R2 miljoen kapitaalwins op die vervreemding van ‘n primêre eiendom uitgesluit van die betaling van kapitaalwinsbelasting. Hierdie uitsluiting is net van toepassing indien die eiendom geregistreer is in die naam van ‘n individu of ‘n spesiale trust. Die grootte van die eiendom moet ook nie 2 hektaar oorskry nie. As die eiendom gedeeltelik vir woondoeleindes en gedeeltelik vir werksdoeleindes gebruik word moet ‘n proporsionele  verdeling gedoen word.

Wanneer verskillende individue aandele in ‘n primêre eiendom besit, sal die uitsluiting proporsioneel wees tot die aandeel wat elkeen besit. Byvoorbeeld wanneer eggenote wat getroud is buite gemeenskap van goedere saam die primêre eiendom besit, sal elkeen kwalifiseer vir die uitsluiting van R1 miljoen. Elke eggenoot sal verder geregtig wees op die jaarlikse uitsluiting wat tans R30 000 beloop.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.

INFORMAL “DECISIONS” BY HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS

INFORMAL “DECISIONS” BY HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS

A3blMany homeowners’ associations have strict requirements concerning the aesthetic appearance of buildings on the estate. These include fences and other smaller additions that are not always considered by the homeowner to be building projects in terms of the rules, the Memorandum of Association (MOA) or the Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI). The owners then fail to submit plans and/or drawings for formal approval by the trustees or directors of the association.

Some homeowners knowingly attempt to avoid the prescribed formal process and merely invite a trustee or director for an informal discussion, explaining with waving arms the envisaged building project, be it a fence or a pergola. The nod of approval by the trustee is then held by the homeowner to be “approval” of the planned project.

The courts have ruled as follows with regard to the “consent” granted by a trustee at an informal meeting with the homeowner, where the MOA or MOI of the homeowners’ association clearly dictates a procedure for approval of any building or improvement:

  1. In order for a trustee or director to sign off a plan in his official capacity, a trustee must properly inform himself of the issues which affect the complex as a whole and not simply have regard to his or her inter-personal relationship with the homeowner. In order to be properly informed, a trustee must ordinarily make a decision in committee with the benefit of debate. His decision must consciously have regard to the MOA or the MOI, whichever case it may be, and the long-term interests of the members. Failure by the trustee to do so will imply that the trustee has not applied his mind to all the relevant issues. It may be possible to impute acceptance by a person both in his individual and official capacity.
  1. The nature of the relationship established between homeowners under a MOA or MOI to which each subscribes, constitutes an agreement in terms of which each homeowner submits contractually to the decisions of a body of elected trustees to whom they have conferred the right and power to make binding decisions on matters that affect their relationship inter se, or which generally affect the estate.
  1. It is further important to take note of whether written consent has been granted by the trustee, as such an action by the trustee would be an additional consideration to establish whether a formal decision will be deemed to have been made.

See specifically Hoosen & Others NNO v Deedat 1999 (4) SA 425 (SCA) and Khyber Rock Estate East Home Owners Association v 09 of Erf 823 Woodmead Ext 13 CC, a judgement by his honourable acting justice Spilg in the Witwatersrand Local Division in case number 7689/2006.

An informal discussion regarding the building plans of the homeowner can thus not be deemed as a formal decision made by the trustees of the homeowners’ association, if the homeowner failed to follow the prescribed procedure.

In the event that a homeowner indeed deems the informal consent as a “decision” made by the trustees of the homeowners’ association, the courts will not interfere with the decision made by a homeowners’ body save under recognised grounds of judicial review as applied to a voluntary association whose members have bound themselves to its rules, which include the conferring of decision-making functions on an elected body of trustees. (Turner v Jockey Club of South Africa 1974 (3) SA, SA Medical & Dental Council v McLoughlin 1948 (2) SA 355 (AD) and Marlin v Durban Turf Club & Others 1942 AD 112). 

Trustees and directors should therefore take care when having informal discussions with homeowners and insist on the due process, in terms of the rules, the MOA or the MOI, to be followed to the letter. Rather avoid commenting or voicing an opinion except at the appropriate forum – the formal meeting of the trustees or directors where the item is noted on the agenda in compliance with the association’s prescribed formal requirements.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other 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 legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

INFORMELE “BESLUITE” DEUR HUISEIENAARSVERENIGINGS

INFORMELE “BESLUITE” DEUR HUISEIENAARSVERENIGINGS

A3blDie meeste huiseienaarsverenigings het streng voorskrifte wat die estetiese voorkoms van geboue binne die landgoed betref. Dit sluit gewoonlik heinings en ander kleiner aanbouings in, wat nie altyd deur die huiseienaar self as ‘n bouprojek beskou word wat binne die reëls van die huiseienaarsvereniging, die Memorandum van Inkorporasie (MVI) of die Memorandum van Assosiasie (MVA) val nie. Die huiseienaar dien dan nie planne en/of tekeninge in vir formele goedkeuring deur die trustees of direkteure van die vereniging nie.

Sommige huiseienaars omseil die voorgeskrewe formele proses deur ‘n trustee of direkteur uit te nooi vir ‘n informele gesprek en beduie dan met groot gebare hoe die beoogde prieel of heining daar sal uitsien. Enige instemmende kopknik deur die trustee of direkteur word deur die huiseienaar as “goedkeuring” van die beplande projek beskou.

Die howe het soos volg beslis in verband met die “toestemming” verleen deur ‘n trustee tydens ‘n informele byeenkoms, spesifiek in gevalle waar die MVI of MVA van die huiseienaarsvereniging ‘n duidelike prosedure voorskryf vir die verkryging van goedkeuring vir enige bouprojek of verbetering:

  1. ‘n Trustee of direkteur moet, voordat hy ‘n plan goedkeur, hom eers deeglik vergewis van alle oorweginge wat die landgoed in die geheel raak en nie bloot die persoonlike verhouding wat hy met die huiseienaar het, in ag neem nie. Om behoorlik ingelig te wees, moet ‘n trustee normaalweg ‘n besluit neem in komitee sodat die aangeleentheid gedebatteer kan word. Die trustee se besluit moet geneem word met bewustelike nakoming van die voorskrifte van die MVI of MVA, welke ookal van toepassing is, en met inagneming van die langtermynbelange van die lede. As die trustee hiermee in versuim bly, impliseer dit dat hy nie behoorlike aandag aan alle toepaslike oorweginge geskenk het nie. Dit is moontlik om die verlening van toestemming aan iemand toe te reken in sowel sy persoonlike as amptelike hoedanigheid.
  1. Die aard van die verhouding tussen huiseienaars en ‘n huiseienaarsvereniging, daargestel deur die onderskrywing van die MVI of MVA, vestig ‘n ooreenkoms waarvolgens elke huiseienaar hom vrywillig gebonde ag aan die besluite geneem deur ‘n liggaam van verkose trustees aan wie die reg en mag verleen is om bindende besluite te neem oor sake wat die verhoudinge onderling en die landgoed in die algemeen raak.
  1. Daar moet verder daarop gelet word of skriftelike toestemming verleen is deur die trustee aangesien sodanige optrede deur die trustee ‘n bykomende oorweging is in die beoordeling of dit ‘n formele besluit daarstel al dan nie.

Kyk veral Hoosen & Others NNO v Deedat 1999 (4) SA 425 (SCA) en Khyber Rock Estate East Home Owners Association v 09 of Erf 823 Woodmead Ext 13 CC, ‘n uitspraak deur Sy Edele regter Spilg in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling onder saaknommer 7689/2006.

Waar die huiseienaar nie die voorgeskrewe handelswyse gevolg het nie, kan ‘n informele gesprek oor die bouplanne van ‘n huiseienaar nie beskou word as ‘n formele besluit geneem deur die trustees van die huiseienaarsvereniging nie.

In die geval waar die huiseienaar die informele toestemming as ‘n “besluit” geneem deur die trustees van die huiseienaarsvereniging beskou, sal die howe nie inmeng met die besluit geneem deur ‘n huiseienaarsverening nie behalwe op die erkende gronde van regterlike hersiening soos toegepas op vrywillige assosiasies wie se lede hul tot die reëls van die assosiasie verbind het, wat insluit die afwenteling van besluitnemingsbevoegdheid na ‘n verkose liggaam van trustees. (Turner v Jockey Club of South Africa 1974 (3) SA, SA Medical & Dental Council v McLoughlin 1948 (2) SA 355 (AD) en Marlin v Durban Turf Club & Others 1942 AD 112). 

Trustees en direkteure moet derhalwe uiters versigtig wees tydens informele gesprekke met huiseienaars en aandring op die stiptelike nakoming van die voorgeskrewe proses, soos in die reëls, die MVI of die MVA omskryf. Dit is raadsaam om enige kommentaar of opinie te vermy en dit liefs uit te spreek in die gepaste forum – die formele vergadering van die trustees of direkteure waar die saak in die agenda opgeneem is ter nakoming van die assosiasie se voorgeskrewe formele vereistes.

Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.