Barry v Coshott (No.2)

Barry (the applicant) sought an order for possession of a property against Coshott (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's continued occupation of the property after the applicant had terminated the licence under which the respondent had been permitted to reside there. The applicant contended that the respondent was a bare licensee whose licence had been validly revoked, and therefore, the respondent had no legal right to remain in possession. The respondent, however, argued that the licence was coupled with an interest, or that the revocation was invalid, or that the applicant was estodden from revoking the licence. The matter came before Judge Driver in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's occupation of the property was based on a licence that was revocable at the will of the applicant, or whether it was a licence coupled with an interest, or otherwise irrevocable. This determination was crucial to establishing whether the applicant was entitled to an order for possession. The Court also considered whether the applicant was estopped from revoking the licence, and if the revocation itself was validly effected.

Judge Driver found that the respondent's occupation was based on a bare licence, which was revocable at the will of the applicant. His Honour reasoned that the licence was granted for the respondent's personal convenience and did not create any proprietary interest in the land. The Court rejected the argument that the licence was coupled with an interest, as there was no underlying legal right or estate that the licence was ancillary to. Furthermore, the Court found no basis for an estoppel, as the respondent had not acted to his detriment in reliance on any representation by the applicant that the licence would not be revoked. The revocation was therefore valid.

The Court made orders for possession of the property in favour of the applicant.