Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

activity to be carried on therein by the granteedemonstrated an intention not to create a tenancy. 129At this stage of its deliberations the Commission is not convinced thatsuch a provision would add much to what is proposed in earlierparagraphs. Indeed, there is a danger that, by attempting to be soprescriptive, new uncertainties may be created as disputes ariseconcerning whether a particular case comes within one of the“rebuttal” categories. However, no final conclusion has been reachedon this issue and further thought will be given to it, especially in thelight of responses to the <strong>Consultation</strong> <strong>Paper</strong>.1.33 The Commission has reached no formal conclusion as towhether legislation should raise a rebuttable presumption that atenancy has been created and welcomes views on this.129These categories would probably cover well-recognised arrangements notinvolving a tenancy, eg: a caretaker’s agreement (see Davies v Hilliard(1965) 101 ILTR 50); an arrangement with a servant or employee (seeGreat Southern Railways v Bergin (1937) 71 ILTR 276); one involving alodger or guest (see Waucob v Reynolds (1850) 1 ICLR 142; Carroll vMayo County Council [1967] IR 364) or member of the family (see Peakinv Peakin [1895] 2 IR 359); temporary hiring arrangements (see Kelly vWoolworth & Co [1922] 2 IR 5; Boylan v Dublin Corporation [1949] IR60; MacGinley v National Aid Committee [1952] IR Jur Rep 43);franchising arrangements (Governors of the National Maternity Hospital vMcGouran [1994] 1 ILRM 521).31