Mr Wolf
What's the time, Mr Wolf?
The leads closest to the bar for reopening the 1987 judgment, each scored out of 200. 100 is the threshold; we aim for 200 to be sure.
Our case, prospective, not a finding of any court.
Nothing on the record yet reaches the threshold of 100. The highest score is 80.
Leaderboard
- 1
The licence letters rejected in writing?
80 / 200 20 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause50/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: Any letter from her or her 1974 solicitors to BP Pension Trust, BP Properties or Linklaters & Paines between 4 November 1974 and 26 March 1983, or BP's list of documents in the 1984–86 action.
Open: letter being traced
Read more
The decisive finding was that Mary (Nancy) Williams never told BP she rejected the 1974 letters ('she did not, however, do that'). A written rejection, if BP held one while its case said there was none, would go to the heart of the decision.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- None yet. It would need BP to have held a written rejection while its case said there was none.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 50/50
- The court wrote that the result 'may' have been different had she plainly told BP she did not accept the letters.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- The cutting cited as a '1978 article' is the Daily Telegraph of 16 April 1974, six months before the letters, so not a rejection.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- No communication to BP after 4 November 1974 has been found.
- 2
1982–83 first registration of the farmhouse without the occupier
80 / 200 20 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty20/50
- Cause10/50
- Fresh30/50
- Quality20/50
What would raise it: Read WA240304 item 11 (Form 1C with its statutory declaration) and item 7 (the 8 April 1983 letter), already requested from HM Land Registry. A declaration that misstated occupation would lift limbs 1 and 4.
Open: HM Land Registry request pending
Read more
The farmhouse was registered separately (title WA240304, application on Form 1C, register edition 23 February 1983) while BP's own 1974 action against the occupier, Mary (Nancy) Williams, had never been finally heard.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 20/50
- HM Land Registry's file lists the Form 1C application and a letter of 8 April 1983. What the declaration stated about occupation has not been read.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 10/50
- The Court of Appeal held that any title she had acquired would have been an overriding interest binding the registration, so the registration date was not why she lost.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 30/50
- HM Land Registry's 2026 schedule and complaint replies are new.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 20/50
- An official anomaly; the declaration itself is unread.
- 3
31 October 1974 licence letters: could BP Properties give a licence?
70 / 200 30 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause30/50
- Fresh20/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: Read the 23 May 1975 conveyance (WA240304 item 12) and its plan for the date of the contract for sale. A contract dated after 31 October 1974 would lift limbs 1 and 3.
Open: conveyance to be read
Read more
The Court of Appeal answered the 'wrong company' point from the letters' own words that BP Properties Ltd 'had agreed to buy'. Completion came only in May 1975, and HM Land Registry's file adds a plan to that sale dated 23 February 1975.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- No record yet shows the writers knew the 'agreed to buy' words were untrue.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 30/50
- The whole result rests on the licence of BP Properties Ltd: 'from the time of her receipt of the letters, Mrs Buckler was in possession ... by the licence of BP Properties Ltd'.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 20/50
- The February 1975 plan is new, but the court already knew completion was in May 1975.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- Catalogue entries only; the conveyance and any recital of the contract date are unread.
- 4
The 31 December 1969 conveyance and the 1971 abstract missing from the title files
60 / 200 40 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause30/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: The 1969 conveyance itself (requested from HM Land Registry and the BP Archive) and the 1974 affidavit for leave: check whether the benefit of the 1962 judgment was expressly passed on.
Open: records requested
Read more
In September 1974 BP Pension Trust obtained leave to enforce the 1962 possession order 'as successors in title to Western Ground Rents'. The 1969 conveyance from Western Ground Rents is not among the documents lodged on either first-registration file.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- No record yet of anyone knowing a deed was missing or misdescribed.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 30/50
- The court held that enforcement of the 1962 judgment 'was still open to the landlords at October 31 1974'. Only the judgment creditor or its successor could enforce it.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- HM Land Registry's 2026 lists of first-registration documents leave out the 1969 deed, though both root deeds recite it.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- Absence from a list of lodged documents does not prove the deed did not exist; the deed itself is unread.
- 5
1877 Bute–Thomas agreement and the 1928 last rent
60 / 200 40 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause20/50
- Fresh20/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: Produce the 1877 agreement with its plan and the 1928 receipt, and locate the 25 December 1938 conveyance (Bute and Mountjoy Ltd to Western Ground Rents) with its plan.
Open: originals being traced
Read more
Our case: the farmhouse plot left the Bute estate under an 1877 arrangement with Daniel Thomas & Son, with rent ending in 1928. If so, the farmhouse lay outside the 1916 and 1949 tenancies and the 1938 conveyance, and the paper title the court relied on would fail for it.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- Nothing yet points to anyone knowingly hiding it.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 20/50
- The court started from BP's 'paper title to the farm' and a 1916 tenancy of 'the whole of the farm'.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 20/50
- The 1938 conveyance and plan are not located; the family copy has no scan.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- The 1877 agreement, plan and 1928 receipt are unread originals.
Records: EV-0006 EV-0007 EV-0016 EV-0341 EV-0019 EV-0216 EV-0291 EV-0254
- 6
2 February 1987: the two titles merged while the appeal was pending
50 / 200 50 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause10/50
- Fresh20/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: Obtain WA231076 item 14: the application, its plan, the title extents before and after, and any correspondence about the pending appeal.
Open: record requested (Mr Wolf seed score)
Read more
HM Land Registry merged the farmhouse title (WA240304) into the main title (WA231076) on 2 February 1987, while the appeal was before the Court of Appeal.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- Who applied, and why at that moment, is unread.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 10/50
- The court's description of the registration matches the register as merged, but it held the registration date was not why the occupier lost.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 20/50
- The amalgamation application and plan are listed on HM Land Registry's file (WA231076 item 14).
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- Listed, not read.
- 7
1975 conveyance reservations and 'safeguard your future occupation'
50 / 200 50 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty20/50
- Cause10/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: Read the 1975 conveyance with its plan: whether the 'Retained Land' is the rest of the farm, and the contract date.
Open: conveyance to be read
Read more
The 1974 letters gave the sale to BP Properties as 'the only way' to 'safeguard your future occupation'. The 23 May 1975 conveyance, as entered on the register, kept development rights over the farmhouse plot.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 20/50
- Several documented facts: the letters' stated purpose, beside the reservations the register records from the 1975 conveyance.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 10/50
- The court decided the letters' legal effect; the writer's motive played no part in that reasoning.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- New to the record, but the deed was most likely in the 1986 trial bundle.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- A register view, not an official copy; the deed is unread.
- 8
Title papers taken from the blanket box (1950)
40 / 200 60 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause10/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: Anything tying the Penarth agent to Western Ground Rents, the Bute estate office or their agents about 1949–55 (directories, probate, agency records).
Open
Read more
The judgment records that documents proving title were 'never produced'. A typed statement from about 1974 records that in June 1950 a Penarth estate agent had the family's papers taken from a blanket box.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- Second-hand: what a lodger told her the agent asked him to do. Nothing yet links the agent to Western Ground Rents or BP.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 10/50
- The missing papers appear only in the judgment's background; the decision turned on the 1974 letters.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- The statement was with the family from 1974; no record shows it went before the 1986 trial.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- An unsigned, undated typed copy with its last page missing.
- 9
Village green VG41 (1970)
40 / 200 60 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause0/50
- Fresh20/50
- Quality10/50
What would raise it: The VG41 register sheet, the 1970 application or the authority's own-motion minute, and any objection (already asked of the Vale of Glamorgan).
Open: separate route, request pending
Read more
Land was registered as village green VG41 in 1970 by Glamorgan County Council, whose own planning committee had heard Mary (Nancy) Williams object in 1958 that family land had been 'wrongfully appropriated'.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- No VG41 application has been read, and the 1965 Act let an authority register a green without one, so no false declaration is shown.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 0/50
- The judgment does not mention the green, so it cannot have caused the 1987 decision. A separate route (correcting the register), not a reopening ground.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 20/50
- The 1958 Western Mail report is new to the record.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 10/50
- A newspaper report of her words; the VG41 file is unread.
- 10
Missing public records and 'no records found' answers
30 / 200 70 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause0/50
- Fresh20/50
- Quality0/50
What would raise it: Destruction logs and retention schedules showing when and why files were removed (asked for). Only a record of deliberate removal would count, not a modern search that found nothing.
Parked as a reopening ground: after 1987
Read more
The 1988 demolition, Cadw's missing 1988 file and answers that records 'would have been destroyed'. Limitation Act 1980 s.32 postpones time where facts were deliberately concealed.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- Cadw gave two explanations for the lost file.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 0/50
- All of this happened after the July 1987 judgment, so it cannot have caused it.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 20/50
- The 2026 information-request replies are new.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 0/50
- Not yet assessable: no destruction log has been read.
- 11
The May 1939 letting: is the John Williams signature his?
20 / 200 80 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause0/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality0/50
What would raise it: Copy page 1 of the agreement at Glamorgan Archives (DBDT123/7); gather dated signatures of John Williams the younger from 1911 to 1955; then a forensic document examiner's comparison. Even a proved forgery would also need a link to the 1987 decision.
Open: specimens being gathered
Read more
A May 1939 agreement by which Western Ground Rents let 5.30 acres of pasture to John Williams the younger, signed before a bank cashier. Our case asks whether the signature is his.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- Gap only. The signature has been seen in one angled phone photograph; no dated specimens of his hand are held yet.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 0/50
- The 1987 judgment does not mention the 1939 letting. It rested on the 1916 tenancy, the 1949 surrender and re-grant, and the 31 October 1974 letters.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- New catalogue references at The National Archives (wartime farm committee minutes and the National Farm Survey), not yet read.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 0/50
- Nothing a court could weigh yet: one photograph, no specimens, no examiner.
- 12
The 29 March 1961 woodland deed
20 / 200 80 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty10/50
- Cause0/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality0/50
What would raise it: Order the deed and its plan recited on WA735527 and overlay the plan on the farm boundary.
Open: deed orderable (Mr Wolf seed score)
Read more
A deed between Western Ground Rents, South Western Brick & Tile and Cardiff City Corporation, known only from its recital on the woodland title WA735527.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 10/50
- Gap only: dealing over ground next to the occupied farm without reference to the occupier.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 0/50
- The 1987 judgment does not rely on it, and the appeal concerned only the farmhouse and garden.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- Known only by recital; never inspected.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 0/50
- No copy, image or transcript held.
Seed score, waiting for its first test in our reopen research.
- 13
Letters addressed to 'Mrs Buckler'
10 / 200 90 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty0/50
- Cause10/50
- Fresh0/50
- Quality0/50
What would raise it: Nothing known would lift this.
Parked: before the court in 1987
Read more
The 1974 letters were addressed to 'Mrs Buckler', not Mary (Nancy) Williams.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 0/50
- None: a different name is not dishonesty.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 10/50
- Low.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 0/50
- Not fresh: the court knew both names.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 0/50
- Not fresh.
Records: EV-0050
- 14
July 1955: possession taken beyond the order
10 / 200 90 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty0/50
- Cause0/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality0/50
What would raise it: Trace the 1955 order and the sheriff's or bailiff's return (High Court and sheriff records), then overlay them on the boundary plans. To bear on 1987 it would also have to touch the farmhouse plot.
Open: records not located (Mr Wolf seed score)
Read more
Our case asks whether the 1955 Order 14 possession order reached all the ground that was taken on 4 July 1955.
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 0/50
- Neither the order nor the officer's return has been located, so nothing yet shows a knowing over-reach.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 0/50
- The judgment records possession taken in 1955 of all parts of the farm except the farmhouse and garden, and the 1987 appeal concerned only the farmhouse and garden.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- Catalogue placeholders only; both documents are still being traced.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 0/50
- No document yet.
Seed score, waiting for its first test in our reopen research.
- 15
Burials under the farmhouse plot known before 1987?
10 / 200 90 short of the threshold
- Dishonesty0/50
- Cause0/50
- Fresh10/50
- Quality0/50
What would raise it: Only a document dated before July 1987 showing that BP, its agents or the archaeologists knew of burials under the farmhouse plot.
Parked: no pre-1987 record
Read more
Was knowledge of the burials found under the farm (1,026 recorded in 1994) held before the 1986–87 trial and kept from the court?
- Dishonesty or concealment shown · 0/50
- No record of anyone knowing of burials under the plot before 1990.
- Operative cause of the 1987 outcome · 0/50
- What lay underground has no bearing on whether the 1974 letters turned possession into permission.
- Not available then with reasonable diligence · 10/50
- The 1990 and 2005 archaeology reports are new, but neither shows knowledge before 1987.
- Evidence quality and admissibility · 0/50
- Credible sources, but they would not have influenced the decision.
Records: EV-0293
How the score works
Each lead is scored on the four limbs of the test for setting aside a judgment obtained by dishonesty or concealment, the Takhar threshold (Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13, adopting RBS v Highland Financial Partners LP [2013] EWCA Civ 328).
- Dishonesty or concealment shown (0–50)
- An operative cause of the 1987 outcome (0–50)
- Evidence not available then with reasonable diligence (0–50)
- Evidence quality and admissibility (0–50)
The four add up to 200. 100 means the Takhar threshold is plausibly met; 200 means proved beyond doubt on every limb. A lead is ready for counsel only with at least 40 on every limb.
Mapping: our reopen research scores each limb 0–5 (0 nothing; 1 inference or gap; 2 several documented facts; 3 a primary official record shows the anomaly; 4 a primary document proves the limb; 5 admissible originals ready for counsel). Each point is 10 here. Ties are ordered by limb 2. Leads marked as seed scores have not yet been tested.
Quarantined items (kissed frogs, under scrutiny) are never scored here. Data: leaderboard.json v1.0.0.