Thanks! Sounds like a slippery slope of first abusing property rights and then more nefarious plans enacted.

"..the defendants commenced the construction of a hotel ... at the rear of the property"

and

"The ... defendant employed John McGinty as contractor ... (who) .. occupied house without consent of the plaintiff while the hotel was being built."

Then they interact with the doofus caretaker, conclude he is a lame duck and arson ensues.

The caretaker allows the workman to inhabit the property without the owners consent. Mind. Blowing. Negligence. "Thanks for that".