FCG · Our case
Register Additions — 6 October 2026 (A-074 to A-087)
Source: Legal Wiki page Register Additions — 6 October 2026 (A-074 to A-087) (page 1385). Fraud, concealment and government-involvement points here are our case and lines of enquiry, not findings of any court or public body. Evidence references (EV / GHF-E ids, Register rows) link to the Legal Wiki's evidence pages. All case pages →
Page ID: 1385 · Title: Register Additions — 6 October 2026 (A-074 to A-087) · Evidence status: Not yet labelled — see the Editing Protocol · Version: 1.0.0 · Editing Protocol
This page adds fourteen issues to the Master Scrutiny Issue Register, continuing its numbering from A-073. They arise from the Case Analysis of 5 October 2026 and the Legal Review — Fraud, Land and Human Rights of 6 October 2026, which read the two family forensic reports (Cadw v8.0.0; GGAT v4.0.3) against the rest of the record. The register’s rules apply: “Open” means unresolved on the present record, not a finding of wrongdoing; a missing record is not proof of concealment. 🕒
| ID | Issue | Question / concern | Evidence lead | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-074 | WA240304 — the farmhouse title in Mary’s last weeks | The 1987 judgment ties the May 1975 conveyance to the farmhouse and garden; WA240304 was registered on it. Linklaters applied on 23 February 1983, certifying no question or doubt affecting title, while Mary’s 1974 plea of ownership was undecided. Mary died on 26 March 1983. The file holds correspondence of 8 and 12 April 1983 and a form D23 marked “inside exam”. What did HMLR ask about occupation or adverse claims, and what was answered? | WA240304 items 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 (form OC2) | Open — documents orderable now |
| A-075 | Land Registration Act 1925 s.115 | The 1925 Act made fraudulent concealment of a document or fact material to title in registration proceedings an offence. Whether anything in the 1982–83 applications engages it is a legal test to apply once the file is read. | As A-074; statute text | Open — legal test, no finding |
| A-076 | Estoppel, abuse of process and the new-evidence exception | Title was not argued in 1984–87. Any title claim now meets Henderson v Henderson abuse and issue-estoppel arguments. The exception is special circumstances such as new material that could not have been found with reasonable diligence (Arnold v National Westminster Bank [1991] 2 AC 93). When and how did the family obtain each title document? | Family records of when the 1938 conveyance, 1939 tenancy and other papers were obtained | Open — counsel |
| A-077 | The 1939 plan and the 1987 limitation premise | The court started the clock in February 1955 on the basis that the farmhouse was within Frederick’s tenancy. If WGR’s May 1939 tenancy plan excludes the house, adverse possession against WGR ran from 1938–39 and would have completed in about 1951, before the 1955 order. | 1939 tenancy and plan (family holds); 1938 conveyance and plan (family holds) | Open — upload scans |
| A-078 | Record losses clustered around proceedings | Family papers c.1950–52 (before the 1955 action); the library copy of the Bute–Thomas deed in 1984 (the year of the writ); RCAHMW’s Johns–Buckler correspondence “since 1986/87” (trial and appeal). Is there a file-movement, loan or administrative record for any of these? | RCAHMW administrative files; Cardiff Library records; A-080 | Open — timing only; no causal finding |
| A-079 | Stolen chattels are not time-barred | Limitation Act 1980 s.4: no limitation period runs in respect of a stolen chattel, except against a later good-faith purchaser. If the 1950–52 papers (or 1988 contents) were stolen, the family’s ownership survives and their return can be requested from any holder. | Requests to BP Properties, BP p.l.c. and the BP Archive, Linklaters, any WGR successor and any successor of Mr Knapp’s firm | Open — action available now |
| A-080 | Mr Knapp and Bruce Sutherland | Who was Mr Knapp (Penarth estate agent and lay preacher, 1950), whom did he act for, and was he connected to WGR, the Bute estate office or their solicitors? Is the lodger Bruce Sutherland’s conviction (c.1951–52) recorded? | Kelly’s Glamorgan directories; Penarth petty sessions registers (Glamorgan Archives); British Newspaper Archive; probate calendars | Open |
| A-081 | The 1974 licence from a not-yet-owner | The second 31 October 1974 letter came from BP Properties, which held only a contract to buy until the May 1975 conveyance, after BP Pension Trust’s action stalled on Mary’s ownership plea. What did each BP company know of the plea when it wrote? | The letters; the 1974–75 sale contract; BP and Linklaters files | Open |
| A-082 | 1988 public statements and the court record | BP said Mr Buckler “lost the court hearing in Cardiff and did not appeal”; the press said Mary “lost three previous High Court cases claiming she was the rightful owner”. No court decided her ownership, and the 1986 decision was appealed. | N07; N15 | Documented (press) |
| A-083 | Ownership of finds and the Church Farm question | Objects found in land belong to the landowner (Waverley BC v Fletcher [1996] QB 334). The 1994 assemblage was donated by Ideal Homes Wales (95.56H). Where did “Llandough Church Farm” stand, where the 1858 spur, spearhead and about six skeletons were found, and was it ever part of the Great House holding? | Parcel overlay (GGAT report IV.4); tithe and estate maps; Museum file 63.24 | Open |
| A-084 | The woodland’s two strands and the 1994 consideration | WA735527 holds land tinted blue (from the 1975 farmhouse conveyance) and pink (from the 1982 conveyance). Did the Forest of Cardiff pay value in 1994? A volunteer does not have a purchaser’s protection under Limitation Act 1980 s.32(3) or LRA 2002 s.29. | 10 November 1994 transfer; WA735527 title plan | Open |
| A-085 | VG41 ownership section | The village green VG41 was registered on 16 June 1970 under the Commons Registration Act 1965, whose registers had an ownership section; unclaimed land could be vested in the local authority (s.8). Who claimed to own VG41, and on what evidence? | Commons register for VG41; Commons Commissioner decision file | Open |
| A-086 | The 1994 burial-licence lapse | The Home Office licence to the excavator expired on 21 April 1994 and was unrenewed at 3 May. What was excavated or removed in that window, and under what authority? Removal without a licence was an offence under the Burial Act 1857 s.25 (text as in force in 1994). | Home Office licence file; CAT site diary; GGAT letters of 22 April and 3 May 1994 | Open |
| A-087 | “County treasure” — conflicting attribution | The Cadw report attributes the phrase to BP Properties’ 1989 redevelopment documentation; the GGAT report quotes GGAT’s 1989 consultee report (“was listed as a ‘county treasure’”). Which document says it, in what words? | Page images of both 1989 documents (Vale file 89/01396/OUT) | Open — source conflict |
Audit rule. When any of these is resolved, the question stays here with the answer, the document that answers it and the date.
Page version & change log
Current version: 1.0.0
| Version | Date (UTC) | Editor (human or agent name) | Change | Source / evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-18T15:27Z | Tab (for Sion Buckler) | Footer standardised; no content change | Editing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026 |
Agents and editors: follow the Editing Protocol.