Blake Morgan
Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026
Translation pending: the assessment text below is in English, the authoritative record.
- Response status
- No contact on file → Not held / refused
- Last contact
- 29 October 2026
- Next date on file
- None on file
- Earlier version
- v1.0.0, published 21 October 2026 on the Legal Wiki
Since last assessment
14 October 2026 to 1 November 2026
Our reading: Since 14 October 2026, 3 emails are on file: 2 sent, 1 received (1 with content, 0 automatic acknowledgements). The latest reply moves the response status from “No contact on file” to “Not held / refused”. Most material: 22 October 2026, received, not held: The firm states the matter was an old file from its London office, closed in 1996, and that no records remain in storage. Nothing here changes the earlier current finding unless stated above; this is a log of contact, not a finding about any person.
- Sentpreservation notice
The requester follows up a preservation notice, asks four questions about records of a 1986-87 legal matter, and requests continued preservation.
- Receivednot held
The firm states the matter was an old file from its London office, closed in 1996, and that no records remain in storage.
- Sentfollow-up
Follow-up to the 28 Sep preservation notice after the firm's reply of 22 Oct that its old London office file was closed in 1996.
The assessment as last published
Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (21 October 2026). Links point inside this site.
Assessed 14 October 2026. Scope: modern preservation correspondence only. No historic role for this firm is established on the wiki. Inclusion is not a finding of fault.
Documented appearances
| Date | Appearance | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 28 September 2026 | Named among the recipients of the second preservation notice. | FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register, preservation notices section |
| Welsh Government and Cadw correspondence | The name also appears in the Welsh Government and Cadw email catalogue (Part 3). | Catalogue, Part 3 |
Current finding
As at 14 October 2026, no reply from the firm is recorded in the reply register and nothing establishes wrongdoing. A preservation notice is a custody control. It does not allege destruction or concealment.
Next step
Establish why the firm is on the notice list (client or role) from the catalogue page, record any reply, and if none arrives within a stated period, log a dated chase. Acceptance: role stated from a source, and reply or chase logged.
Related
Linklaters review · Landmark Chambers review · Darwin Gray review
Created 14 October 2026. Prepared with AI assistance from the wiki’s existing records, on the family’s instruction. Corrections are welcome and will be dated here.
Change history is maintained on the Master Change Log; no separate page-local version footer is maintained.
Case file
This file is built for a future reparations claim. Facts are as the records show them; interpretation is labelled “our reading”. Items marked “not checked” have not been compared with the original record.
(a) Conduct timeline
3 dated interactions, oldest first; 0 automatic acknowledgements are left out. Quotations are verbatim from the institution’s email; where the reply’s substance was an attachment, the email subject is quoted instead.
Show the timeline
| Date | Direction | Reference | Type | Verbatim |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 October 2026 | sent | — | preservation notice | Subject: Preservation notice — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — do not destroy records — Matter of public interest |
| 22 October 2026 | received | — | not held | There are no records of anything remaining in storage. |
| 29 October 2026 | sent | — | follow-up | Subject: RE: Preservation notice — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — do not destroy records — Matter of public interest |
(b) Inconsistencies and gaps
“Not held” answers set against the duty below
- 22 October 2026: “not held” answer: The firm states the matter was an old file from its London office, closed in 1996, and that no records remain in storage.
(c) Quarantined-name links
Records on the quarantine register (Kissed Frogs) that sit in, or came from, this institution’s holdings. None is treated as settled.
No quarantined-name record on the register is linked to this institution’s holdings.
(d) Duty and liability — our reading
Liability indicators (our reading): some
- Duty
- No general statutory duty to disclose; UK GDPR Art. 15 for personal data it holds; duties in contract, conveyancing practice or professional rules where it was a party, agent or adviser; once on notice of a possible claim, an expectation to preserve relevant documents.
- Indicators the duty was not met
- “not held” answers.
- Evidence still needed to confirm
- the institution’s retention schedule and disposal record for the series in question; the catalogue or file list it searched; any internal review or complaint outcome.
- Likely extent of exposure if confirmed
- Depends on its role in a transaction: where it was a party or adviser to a dealing in the land, exposure follows that role; otherwise none beyond data-protection duties.
(e) Evidence still needed
- View any deposited papers (company or estate records) at the archive that holds them. for paid visit list
- Check, in person, the series that would hold what the 22 October 2026 answer covers. for paid visit list
Versions
| 1.1.0 | 2026-11-01 | Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read. |
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-21 | As published on the Legal Wiki. |