CA 25 November 1986. An appeal concerning whether an oral agreement constituted a grazing licence within the proviso to Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 s2(1) or a protected tenancy of an agricultural holding. Also considered whether a seasonal grazing licence, not referring to specific dates, was within the proviso. The cc held that the agreement in question constituted such a grazing licence and did not create a tenancy. The defendant appealed, submitting that the judge had made no express reference to the proviso and did not have in mind the words "during some specified period of the year". This appeared to challenge the established line of authority which decided that a seasonal grazing licence, not identified by reference to specific dates but related to grazing and mowing periods, fell within the proviso. The defendant also claimed that the cc had erred in regard to the burden of proof , saying at one point that "so far as the onus of proof is concerned each had a liability to es