EV-0031 — Reported 1954 further attempt to treat Frederick Buckler as a tenant (source pending)

page · Updated 2026-10-21T19:09:00 · Original source

EV IDEV-0031
TitleReported 1954 further attempt to treat Frederick Buckler as a tenant (source pending)
Date of document1954
Typeoral report (speaker not yet identified)
Evidence labelSOURCE PENDING
Repository / referenceNot identified. Original 1954 source not located or attached.
StatusPENDING — Locate and attach original 1954 record; Compare with 1949–1953 tenancy record, 1952 agents’ letter, 1955 claim/order, and evidence before Hollis J and Court of Appeal.
ProvenancePlaceholder created 15 October 2026 from family chronology naming 1954 as a further tenancy attempt; Not a contemporaneous document; BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2 does not mention 1954.
Wiki catalogue pageGHF-E182
Claims that rely on thisBP Properties Ltd v Buckler, BP v Buckler: Scope, Decided & Undecided, Cardiff County Court — Forensic Assessment, Claim: Repeated attempts to frame Mary (Nancy) Williams’s Parcel A occupation as permiss, Court of Appeal — Forensic Assessment, Evidence Library, Forensic Control-Point Chain — Land → Title → Registration → Court → Enforcement, Forensic Evidence Capture — Decisive Document Schedule & Dedicated Placeholders , Forensic Master Chronology — Authoritative Corrected Version (6 October 2026), Frederick Buckler, Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): The Williams–Buckler Dispute, High Court — Forensic Assessment (+2 more)

Proves: Family chronology identifies a further, unsuccessful 1954 attempt to place Frederick Buckler as a tenant, treated as distinct from the 1949–1953 unwritten tenancy.

Does not prove: Does not establish terms, author, recipient, land concerned, reason for failure, whether raised before Hollis J or Court of Appeal, attribution to Dillon LJ, intent to mislead, or that the court was wrong.

Interpretation: working hypotheses

Working hypotheses, kept apart from the record above. The record text on this page is unchanged. None of these is a finding: each line is labelled as inference, theory, a reading that cuts against the case, or a discarded theory, and names the evidence it rests on and what would confirm or refute it, so the reader can test it. Updated 25 Oct 2026 (v2: ingredients wording).

Demolition, archaeology and the green

DISCARDED THEORY · H-06DISCARDED: the theory that the March 1965 offer to Mrs Buckler was of the eastern fields her husband had held, not the farmhouse. Reason: the only offer to her the judgment describes is "of the farmhouse and garden"; logged as the family's hypothesis with the record point.

Rests on: EV-0039 · EV-0080 · research log E104

Would be confirmed by: Would be revived by the agents' 1965 file naming the fields.

Would be refuted by: Refuted on the judgment's summary unless the file shows otherwise.

Status: Discarded

Cited on

8 pages link here.

Browse mirror index

Small print: dotted links explain a word (see the glossary); amber-shaded links list every name the records use for the same thing.