Bob was expressly told by an employee Emily of a business to never return to that location. A month later, he returns and Emily advises her colleague Colleen the Bob has been banned. A year later Bob again returns and Emily no longer works there and Colleen was not working that day. Instead there is a doorwoman Doris who greets Bob, searches his bag, and happily grants him entry.
Has Bob by entering the business committed trespass?
Alternative variation (but not in my mind sufficiently distinct to justify a separate question): suppose one is banned in principle from all locations of a massive national chain retailer. But this isn’t effectively propagated to all of the door staff and one then goes to some different location where one is admitted by the doorman or bouncer. Has one committed trespass in this case?
Of relevance would seem to be the case of Woolgar v Central Estates Belgravia Ltd though unsure as to its scope of applicability to a context like trespass. But it concerns knowledge among principals and agents and failures of organisations to internally propagate information and coordinate themselves accordingly. Specifically this case held that the knowledge of the agent is the agent of the principal and failure to properly internally coordinate between one agent of a company and another was no excuse for the company not to be bound by its seemingly schizophrenic objective conduct or gestures.
Summary of Woolgar v Central Estates: Landlord informed tenant that he did not wish tenant to renew contract, told staff same and to neither demand nor accept rent. Staff demanded and then accepted rent. Held: authorized agent demanded rent and accepted same, property was properly rented.