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verbal agreement did not matter but it was enough to stop the judge from assessing fees past the point that permission was revoked, admitted by both sides.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.
There was no verbal agreement between Giles and Lidstone.
***Sure there was. It was closed down as soon as the bureaucrat was gonna start charging money.
As I wrote, the devil is in the details. In your case, it was “admitted by both sides.”
***I knew you would focus on that. The ISSUE before the JUDGE was whether the verbal agreement stuff PRIOR TO THE verbal thing admitted by both sides was admissible and it WAS. You just blithely go over that aspect.
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.
***The case with G vs L is that it’s obvious there was no permission to live there, moving forward from about 2016.
Giles said that Lidstone did not have permission to be there and the court ruled in his favor.
***From 2016 onwards. But the court did NOT assess squatting fees going back 23 more years.
Lidstone was unable to provide evidence to support his claim.
***Not from 2016 onwards.
It’s pretty cut and dried.
***From 2016 onwards. What you are NOT looking at is the 23 years prior to 2016. The judge assessed no squatting fees because there was a verbal agreement in place and the plaintiff did nothing to mitigate his supposed losses.