CA 30 January 1987. Appeal by plaintiff owners of workshop and store from decision of cc who held that the defendant occupier was a tenant and refused the plaintiffs order for possession . At issue was whether the occupier of the premises was a tenant or a licensee . The written agreement between the parties described itself throughout as a licence , emphasised that exclusive possession was not conferred and provided that licensees could be moved from time to time to other premises, but included provisions normally found in tenancies. Several decisions were considered including Street v Mountford (Abstract 34734), which concerned residential premises. CA considered that this decision was not applicable to business tenancies, but approved a passage from Halsbury`s Laws of England as an accurate summary of the law. CA held that looking at the agreement as a whole, the indications were in favour of a licence, especially with regard to the provision by which the occupier could be moved t