Reports on the case of Crow and another V Waters and another, heard on 15 May 2007. The case shows that it is essential for an occupier to have been granted exclusive occupation of land for a tenancy to be created. C was given permission to use land for peat extraction. C claimed they had been orally granted a tenancy and were therefore protected under legislation. W argued he had only granted a licence for the property to be used. Furthermore, C had not had exclusive occupation as another party had licence to farm the land. C argued that there had been correspondence in existence referring to them as tenants. "Held": When this correspondence was produced, W immediately claimed it to be a forgery. The judge noted the misspelling of W's name. He decided on balance of probability that it was a forgery. Therefore there had been no lease or exclusive occupation, but merely a licence.