GHF-E141 — 31 July 1987 Court of Appeal judgment: BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2
Wiki catalogue reference: GHF-E141 · Custodian / source URL: Buckler family evidence repository
Evidence preview
Preview not embedded. As at 10-10-2026, no inline image or document preview was identified in the evidence section of this page. Use the custodian/source link below to inspect the item.
1. The evidence
Evidence object area: the family copy is to be uploaded unaltered.
Catalogue UID: GHF-E141 · Custodian/source copy: bucklerfamily.estate. Preview and provenance status as at 10-10-2026.
Description
3. What is not known
2. What is known
Catalogue: GHF-E141 · Type: Judgment · Date of document: 31 July 1987 · Holder: family copy exists, not yet uploaded; public reports (1988) 55 P&CR 337 and [1987] 2 EGLR 168 · Evidence status: PLACEHOLDER upload awaited
DOCUMENTED FACT. The appeal was limited to the farmhouse and its garden. The court recited that BP had the paper title to the farm and had been registered proprietor since November 1982; recorded that Mary’s title documents were never produced; started the limitation clock in February 1955; and held that the 1974 letters made her possession permissive (Court of Appeal review).
- Which propositions were decided, which were assumed from the material put before the court, and which were background.
- Whether the court was shown the 1939 plan or the 1938 conveyance.
Transcription
Open transcription
No verbatim transcription is included in this entry as at 10-10-2026. Where the source contains legible text, transcribe it faithfully and mark illegible or uncertain words rather than silently reconstructing them.
Interpretation and wider context
LEGAL INFERENCE. No judicial wrongdoing is established. Every later decision, including HMLR’s in 2026, leans on it.
Used on: ReOrg · BP Properties Ltd v Buckler
Interpretive assessment date: 10-10-2026.
Grouped analysis: Repeated attempts to frame Mary Williams’s Parcel A occupation as permissive.
Further judgment analysis — 16 October 2026
Primary finding to preserve accurately. In the published judgment, Dillon LJ said that if Mary Buckler had acquired a valid title to the farmhouse and garden by adverse possession, she would have had an overriding interest to which BP Properties Ltd’s registration was necessarily subject; her personal representatives would be entitled to seek rectification. This was expressly conditional. It is not a judicial finding that Mary had established ownership. The same judgment says her asserted title documents were never produced and that no grant of representation to her estate had been obtained as at the appeal.
Effect on the current case theory. The 1982–83 registration evidence remains material to a direct title/registration-mistake and possible indemnity analysis. It is not, without more, proof that the 1987 judgment was obtained by fraud or a stand-alone basis to set that judgment aside. A fraud-based challenge must be kept analytically separate and requires evidence of material fraud, not simply a registration discrepancy or a new argument.
Solicitor identities stated in the judgment. For the appellant Mr W. Buckler, counsel J. B. W. McDonnell Q.C. and M. Jarman were instructed by Robbins Olivey & Blake Lapthorn, acting as agents for Loosemores of Cardiff. For respondent BP Properties Ltd, P. Morgan was instructed by Linklaters & Paines. The report does not identify Masons as a solicitor in this appeal. Masons/Pinsent Masons is therefore a separate lead requiring its own source before it is attributed a role.
Record priority. Ask Hugh James to route a preservation and voluntary client-file request to the custodian of historic Loosemores files; ask Linklaters to identify whether the 1986–87 BP-side appeal file or related title file survives. Separately ask Pinsent Masons whether it or a predecessor held any distinct BP conveyancing, registration or litigation matter, making clear that its role has not yet been established. Confirm whether a grant of representation for Mary’s estate was made after 1987 before assuming who can authorise access.
Indemnity limitation correction. The Land Registration Act 1925, section 83(11), originally imposed a special six-year limit from registration for specified first-registration indemnity claims. Section 2 of the Land Registration Act 1997 substituted a new section 83 and removed that special date-of-registration proviso; the new section instead treated liability as a simple-contract debt with accrual tied to when the claimant knew, or but for their own default might have known, of the claim. The Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 8 paragraph 8, contains a corresponding knowledge-based rule. This does not establish a live entitlement: the relevant claim, claimant, knowledge chronology, loss, causation, transitional rules and any other applicable limitation issues still require legal analysis.
Sources: Published Court of Appeal judgment · Land Registration Act 1997, section 2 · Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 8 · Hugh James announcement on joining with Loosemores (3 July 2023).