| EV ID | EV-0032 |
|---|---|
| Title | 1955 Order 14 possession order against Frederick Buckler (not yet located) |
| Date of document | 1955 (exact date to be confirmed) |
| Type | court record |
| Evidence label | PRIMARY DOCUMENT — NOT PUBLISHED HERE |
| Repository / reference | Not located; HMCTS and National Archives searches in progress |
| Status | PENDING — Holder not located; HMCTS and National Archives searches in progress. Writ, summons, affidavit in support, order and any plan sought. |
| Provenance | No copy on wiki; Original not yet obtained; Order known only as recited in later records. Source link: Buckler family evidence repository (bucklerfamily.estate). |
| Wiki catalogue page | GHF-E125 |
| Claims that rely on this | 17 October 2026 Highlight Report Addendum — County Treasures & Cross-Institution, Claim: Repeated attempts to frame Mary (Nancy) Williams’s Parcel A occupation as permiss, High Court — Forensic Assessment, The National Archives — Forensic Assessment, Three-part Parcel A: chronology, order scope and later title transfers, Western Ground Rents Ltd — Forensic Assessment |
About this page type → Read the Docs
Proves: Not held, so nothing yet. Reported: as recited in later records, WGR obtained summary judgment under Order 14 against Frederick Buckler alone, expressed to cover “the whole of the farm”; Mary, who lived in the house and claimed to own it, was not a party.
Does not prove: Operative wording unknown, including whether “the farm” was defined by plan, acreage or parcel, and whether it covered the farmhouse and garden. Unknown whether a plan was attached, whether the affidavit disclosed Mary’s occupation or the 1939 plan or the 1938 conveyance, and whether Mary was served.
Relevance to the 29 October 2026 working theory. The original Order 14 and supporting papers are not yet located; the extent and legal scope must therefore remain unresolved. Obtain the claim, sealed order, parties, affidavits, schedule and any plan, then compare the authorised area with Parcel B and the claimed parts of Parcel A. The later shorthand “whole farm” or the existence of a possession order alone cannot prove an overbroad or unlawful taking. Read the theory and tests.
