He ruled against the squatter AFTER PERMISSION was REVOKED. He doesn’t seem to be facing fines for squatting for 23 years beforehand because of the actions of both parties involved. That is what you continue to ignore.
In my case the details of the verbal agreement did not matter but it was enough to stop the judge from assessing fees past the point that permission was revoked, admitted by both sides. My landlord claimed it was unsubmissible as evidence since it was verbal, he never gave permission; he was overruled by the judge due to the section 633.5 recording admissibility rules. Overall result: An enforceable verbal agreement. Plus, I can pursue criminal charges if I want.
There was no verbal agreement between Giles and Lidstone.
In my case the details of the verbal agreement did not matter but it was enough to stop the judge from assessing fees past the point that permission was revoked, admitted by both sides.
As I wrote, the devil is in the details. In your case, it was "admitted by both sides."
This is not the case in the instance of Giles v. Lidstone. That's why the court ordered Lidstone to vacate the property.
Giles said that Lidstone did not have permission to be there and the court ruled in his favor. Lidstone was unable to provide evidence to support his claim.
It's pretty cut and dried.