Evicting adult son

Claw Hammer wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

Lodgers and guests are not the same thing.The purpose of that passage is to show that such people are not tenants nor should they be considered as tenants protected by tenancy legislation. They are simply a category of licencee.

Lodgers and "guests" - as in guesthouse.....

Genuine question, but what case law states there must be a contract for any licensee status?

I think confusion is arising between a bare licence and a contractual licence.

A contractual licence as the term suggests requires a contract of sorts, a bare licence does not, permission may be implied or expressly given, in such a case.

Generally speaking where there is a family nature without any contract it will be considered a bare licence which is granted by express or implied permission. The existence of a licence can be inferred without any need to show there was any contract of sorts, something confirmed in the Murphy vs Murphy [1980] IR 183 Supreme Court case.

You can be a bare licensee even whilst negotiating the contract of a licence before becoming a licensee by contract.

How does a church goer in a church or someone browsing in a show (without making a purchase) contract with the church or shop owner?

marko99 wrote: »

This is an extremely ill-informed (i.e. inaccurate) reply. I'm amazed at how many people post authoritative looking statements of complete nonsense dressed up to look like facts or quasi legal opinions!

This is how trump and Boris got elected

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Is he getting the house ?

How do you know it's a he?

GM228 wrote: »

Genuine question, but what case law states there must be a contract for any licensee status?

I think confusion is arising between a bare licence and a contractual licence.

A contractual licence as the term suggests requires a contract of sorts, a bare licence does not, permission may be implied or expressly given, in such a case.

Generally speaking where there is a family nature without any contract it will be considered a bare licence which is granted by express or implied permission. The existence of a licence can be inferred without any need to show there was any contract of sorts, something confirmed in the Murphy vs Murphy [1980] IR 183 Supreme Court case.

You can be a bare licensee even whilst negotiating the contract of a licence before becoming a licensee by contract.

How does a church goer in a church or someone browsing in a show (without making a purchase) contract with the church or shop owner?

Firstly, I actually didn't state a contract was necessary for any licence to exist, CH made that accusation and foolishly quoted a passage containing examples of licences which all required a contract of sorts, I rebuffed that passage on principle.

There is confusion here regarding licences, the term is used across the Irish legal spectrum in tort, contract, and tax statutes (licences capable of being liable to stamp duty). Also other jurisdictions have developed different associations for the word (along with others).

Implied license's can be claimed in a trespass / adverse possession case, but to claim one is a licensee of another party due to implied licence doesn't seem correct, nor can you prove a contractual relationship to the licensor. You don't hold a implied licence which is personal to you, you are exploiting a perceived licence which can be used as a defense in tort to enter a property. Implied licence can only be described as a temporary permission based on the circumstances. In your church example, anyone who could enter would not be described as a licencee, it would literally include anyone who had not been excluded from entry. If the church doors were closed, no implied permission could be claimed.

All I can do in this regard is point to the countless Lease Vs Licence cases and a case where the courts have accepted the party held a licence to occupy to show where the courts have actually considered what a licensee is, but in every case, it is not the status but the contract which is at issue.

Shellmax as used in Shell V Costello
O'Rourke v O'Rourke & ors [2018] IEHC 791 -
"This Court accepts that by a licence agreement between the second and third defendants as licensors and Diane O'Rourke as licensee, she was granted a personal licence to reside in Furness Hall"

What is in the legislation is lawfully in occupation of the dwelling as a licencee of the tenant which does not suggest an implied licence or someone using such a temporary permission.

Occupation was considered in the case below, the word occupation is used throughout the act in terms of exclusive occupation, and there was some debate regarding the use of this word as opposed to possession when the act came out. Occupation is commonly use in UK leases to prevent someone not on the agreement moving in (but not visiting). As the case below shows, there is a link between occupation and the entitlement to claim damages for trespass, I am not saying that a licence to occupy would lead to a claim, but it shows that some higher level of meaning is placed on occupy than having entered the dwelling.

Szabo -v- Kavanagh 2013] IEHC 491 (RTB case)

"I accept that the plaintiff has raised a fair bona fide question in these proceedings. The plaintiff asserts that she was in occupation of the apartment at issue as her home or dwelling at the time she was excluded from it by the action of the defendant in changing the locks while she was at work. The plaintiff is therefore, prima facie, entitled to claim damages for trespass and for breach of her constitutional right to the inviolability of her dwelling."

Finally, all I can do it point at the long practice of using licence agreements for residential and commercial lettings, of which the act sought to address by bring more residential agreements under the protection of a tenancy and I would regard that term as specifically addressing the exclusion of agreements where the tenant lives with the landlord (in this instance the tenant) and the perceived lack of rights this relationship might unfairly place on a tenant who is paying a share and accepted as a shared tenant by the other tenants but not the landlord.