T1 · Which Annex E?
Eight standalone filename matches contain four distinct PDF files by hash, but three substantive text versions. The two six-page exports have identical text and rendered page content. An earlier two-page version also appears as D5 in the SRA exhibit bundles.
- 13 October 2025: two-page embedded version, physical pages 58–59 / printed 41–42 in the examined SRA hearing bundle.
- Updated 25 October 2025: two pages, expanding the forestry-report and email allegations.
- Updated 29 October 2025: six pages, adding conveyancing allegations and further references.
- Updated 6 February 2026: 24 pages, adding costs, joinder, expert-instruction and funding arguments. Cover and signed final page confirm the update date. The PDF’s 6 March export date is not a new substantive revision date.
The latest version’s page map: costs 4–6; joinder 6–10; boundary 10–11; forestry and National Grid 11–13; expert instructions 13–17; funding 17–19; email summary and conveyancing 19–22; referrals and closing 22–24. It refers to external exhibits and accounting material rather than reproducing them. Its legal propositions are the authors’ submissions, not judicial rulings.
T2 · 27 October notice; 28 October acknowledgement
The sent email “Claim L00BP152 — Formal Referral to CPS & SRA re Falsified Documents (Cornwell / Seldons LLP)” was opened in the account holder’s Outlook. It addresses Cornwell and the firm mailbox and visibly lists three attachments: Annex E (137 KB), J-1 (153 KB) and J-2 (184 KB). The Annex E preview contains two pages. This corroborates the earlier outgoing Source N; the later 24-page text must not be attributed to this sending.
The 28 October 2025 email from Sandra Bubyer, concerning case L00BP152, attaches a one-page letter addressed to Miss E and Mr J (141 KB), signed Seldons LLP. The letter was visually read in Outlook. It acknowledges correspondence with attachments sent “15.08 on 27 October 2025” and reserves the firm’s position entirely regarding the content. It contains no substantive account of a review or preservation steps.
The mail display and exported copies use different clock times. The article uses the calendar date and quotes the letter’s time as written; it does not silently equate local-display times. The acknowledgement is not proof of receipt of every document in a later CPS bundle.
T3 · Two material replies dated 24 October 2025
The saved two-page email copy with displayed time 20:28, from Luke Cornwell–Seldons, expressly rejects the allegations of electronic tampering. The body is signed Seldons LLP and the footer says the email is sent on behalf of Seldons. This is distinct from the separate 28 October acknowledgement and reservation; neither document identifies a review by another partner or compliance officer. It says further copies were printed by the client and delivered in person and argues that the concern about the electronic forwarding method no longer applies. It lists attachments attributed to Amelia Skea (National Grid Wayleave Services; Bodmin, Cornwall, in the attributed April 2024 email signature) and Adriel Miller and reserves a wasted-costs application. The covering email has been read; that alone does not authenticate each attached message.
The separate two-page email with displayed time 22:05 supplies a revised disclosure schedule, says it includes electronic copies of the original 1963 and 1975 agreements, and maintains the client’s position that their benefit transferred to him, referring to item 5. This is a stated position, not an admission of fabrication.
The files’ accusatory filenames are not adopted as evidence. The relevant comparison is the actual original, derivative copies, attachments and underlying instrument.
T4 · SRA decision, not an open investigation
The two-page decision dated 30 October 2025, reference RGC-000162355, concerns Seldons LLP and is signed by Laurence Price (SRA Investigation Officer who signed the 30 October 2025 decision). It records an initial report received on 24 June 2025. It assesses the duty owed to a third party, regards the falsification allegations as potentially serious, but says the court should consider them first. It declines investigation and says judicial criticism or positive findings could lead to reconsideration. The covering letter says the file is closed.
The family’s 4 November objection to that decision is not evidence of reopening. Nor is the decision an affirmative finding that the disputed emails were authentic. No later reopening decision was located in this review. The February annex’s assertion that the report “remains active” is not repeated as an established status.
The decision and covering letter carry confidentiality markings. This note reports the relevant outcome; it does not publish those private files, signatures or contact details. Read the regulatory questions
T8 · What was submitted, received and challenged?
The relevant correspondence was reviewed in the account holder’s Outlook. The dated documents are: Price’s two-page request of 15 October 2025; the 21–23 October upload and receipt exchange; his two-page decision and covering letter of 30 October; Mr J’s objections of 30 October and 4 November; and the Contact Centre’s acknowledgment of 8 November.
The local SRA submission folder contains the four categories listed in the sending emails: a four-page report form signed 21 October; a 25-page combined form and substantive report dated 20 October and signed 21 October; a separate exhibit index; and exhibit bundles. The substantive report is the family’s submission to the SRA—not an SRA-authored investigation.
A representative 103-page exhibit bundle was examined. Other 101/103-page versions and a revised index exist. Price’s acknowledgment confirms receipt of files but does not identify every filename or version. The local copies cannot alone establish the exact contents of the upload. The February 2026 Annex E expansion is later material and is not presented as something Price received before the October decision.
- 24 June 2025 · Initial complaint. Mr J sent a complaint about Seldons; the Contact Centre acknowledged forwarding it to the Report Team.
- 15 October · Information requested. Laurence Price asked for specific misleading statements, supporting evidence, the proceedings’ status and any judicial criticism.
- 21 October · Expanded evidence offered. The outgoing email listed a report form, substantive report, index and exhibits. Native files, metadata and witness statements were offered. After a WeTransfer security restriction, Price provided a Mimecast route.
- 23 October · Receipt confirmed. Price wrote:
I confirm receipt of the files you have sent.
- 30 October · File closed. The SRA declined investigation. Mr J challenged the decision in reply.
- 4–8 November · Challenge and promised follow-up. Mr J sent a further seven-page challenge on 4 November. On 8 November Anthony Roberts at the Contact Centre said Price or the Report Team would respond in due course.
No later substantive reply or reopening was found in searches by case reference, Price’s sending address, the escalation subject and SRA domain. This describes the correspondence searched, not every possible account, reference or postal communication.
T9 · Five strands. What did the decision address?
Page references are physical PDF pages in the local 25-page report and representative 103-page exhibit bundle. Each entry distinguishes the family’s allegation, the reviewed copies and the written decision.
Report pp. 7–9, 11–14; exhibits pp. 35–43
Utility emails and BH68
Allegation: The family alleges that the utility-email chain was altered and presented without the editing being disclosed, to support Mark John Mayo’s asserted rights over BH68.
Mark John Mayo — claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon · Case identity and source record
Reviewed material: The copies show Cornwell-to-Cornwell forwarding headers, the reproduced BH67/BH68 wording and the family’s signed wayleave and plan. They make the provenance question identifiable. The alleged insertion requires comparison with the original messages. The Openreach signature expressly identifies Paralaw as acting on its behalf; contractor involvement alone is not evidence of fabrication.
The decision: The decision expressly recognises the self-forwarding/pole allegation and calls falsification potentially serious. It records no native-message comparison or finding about the alleged insertion.
Report pp. 9–11; exhibits pp. 30–34
Forestry correspondence and court use
Allegation: The family alleges that forestry correspondence was obtained and used to misrepresent compliance with an access order.
Reviewed material: The reproduced exchanges show Mr Mayo requesting particular statements and referring to their possible use with his solicitor and the judge. They also include Bexley’s site observations, his statement that he did not suspect commercial firewood sales at the observed scale, and his instruction not to fell further trees until licensed. The 9 August 2024 exchange predates the 13 August access order; whether its later court use misrepresented subsequent compliance requires a separate comparison.
The decision: The decision does not separately discuss the requests, observations or intended court use. Those communications need to be read together, not reduced to a single selected phrase.
Report pp. 14–18; exhibit p. 57
Banking evidence and purchase funding
Allegation: The family disputes the provenance and completeness of the bank-statement copy used to support the adjoining-field purchase and identifies an entry of £121,883.62.
Reviewed material: The annotated copy contains the entry and the features challenged by the family. Account ownership, source of funds and alleged substitution are not established by that marked-up copy; verification and reconciliation with the transaction records are the outstanding tests.
The decision: The decision does not separately address the statement, account identification, bank verification or reconciliation.
Report pp. 19–25; exhibits pp. 54–56, 89–90, 101–103
Conveyancing, completion and tax records
Allegation: The family alleges manipulation of completion and financial records and asks whether the different versions support the transaction described.
Reviewed material: The bundle contains a completion letter, professional-fees invoices, a “TBC” statement, an amended statement and a document headed “Submission Receipt & Electronic SDLT 5 Certificate”. The completion letter says completion occurred on 5 April 2024. A fees invoice is not a client ledger, and its omission of purchase money does not itself establish non-payment. The question is whether the relevant records can be reconciled and authenticated.
The decision: The decision contains no document-by-document resolution of these disputes. It neither authenticates the conveyance nor establishes fabrication.
Report p. 13, pp. 24–25; exhibits pp. 63–65
Disclosure: listed records and supplied copies
Allegation: The family challenges whether the records needed to test the asserted rights and financial evidence were actually supplied.
Reviewed material: The reviewed Seldons letter is dated 17 October 2025. It identifies attached conveyancing documents and privilege/privacy redactions, and offers other listed documents within 14 days of a request. The next comparison is what was requested and what was then provided. The family’s added note calls it a 21 October letter; the original date is used here.
The decision: The decision does not separately identify the disclosure requests, supplied copies or any assessment of compliance.
T10 · The challenge and the policy question
The seven-page 4 November challenge disputes the decision’s remit and reasoning, requests the opening note and communications with Seldons, and seeks reassignment. It expressly says it is not a request for internal review. The reviewed 8 November reply promises a later response, rather than answering the merits.
Two descriptions in the challenge need correction when reporting Price’s position. His decision did not say that only clients could complain: it expressly assessed duties owed to a third party. It also allowed for possible reopening following judicial criticism. Lack of a formal appeal right is not the same as saying reopening is impossible. The publication’s criticism centres on the actual court-first reasoning and treatment of the specific evidence.
The chronology also records a June complaint before Price’s October contact, contrary to the challenge’s suggestion that he intervened before a formal report. The challenge substitutes “other people in the judiciary” for the decision’s “other officers of the Court”; the exhibit bundle itself contains judicial criticism at pages 14–15. Those descriptions are not adopted as evidence of coordination.
The official comparison uses the SRA’s enforcement strategy, assessment guidance and parallel-investigations guidance. The latter two display update dates of 30 December 2021 and 25 November 2019 respectively; they are not new policies first introduced after the decision. The mission is a published institutional commitment, not a sworn statement by Price.
Enforcement strategy ↗ · Assessment guidance ↗ · Parallel proceedings ↗
Read the questions arising from that comparison → · Return to the article →
T5 · The later trial order and the family’s challenge
The reviewed 12-page order packet contains three service copies. Physical pages 1 and 3–4 show an order headed 29 July 2026, dated 22 July 2026, before Walsh following trial judgment. It declares the right of way and boundaries; paragraph 5 places the stock-proof fence and the pole it describes within the field title. It awards the claimant £5, dismisses the counterclaim, makes injunctions and orders indemnity costs subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, including £64,800 on account.
The order also dispenses with service and refuses permission to appeal that decision and a stay of the costs order. That refusal must not be expanded into an assertion that every possible appeal was refused. The packet does not contain the full substantive judgment or an itemised determination of every Annex E allegation.
The three-page “Initial Filing Concise Grounds of Appeal” seeks permission to challenge the July judgment. Ground 6 describes dismissal of the documentary and dishonesty challenges as unfounded and disputes the fairness of their treatment. Blank signature and date fields remain; the copy is evidence of the proposed grounds, not proof of filing, permission or a current appeal outcome. The approved transcript and subsequent decisions remain to be checked.
T8 · BH68: the document chain checked on 19 September 2026
- Owner Wayleave Consent, seven-page copy, physical pages 1–3: agreement dated 4 June 2024, a 14-year term, clause 5’s £2,000 one-off payment and the signed plan identifying 35BH68 and 35-2381-1. This is the agreement also reproduced in Source A, with a different page order.
- Same copy, page 4: PCC’s 10 January 2024 letter records previous dealings with the owners of this property and says any previous owners’ wayleave agreement would have expired. It does not identify the Jenkins agreement or its payment history.
- Same copy, page 7: PCC’s 1 July 2024 letter says it encloses a £2,000 cheque and states £1,520 net after fees. This additional page supports cheque dispatch; it is not a bank-clearance record. The letter uses “West Midlands”, while the executed agreement names National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc.
- October strike-out material: the oral script titled 14 October 2025 challenges the missing conveyancing/wayleave chain and seeks disclosure. Mr J separately describes the challenge made at the hearing. The 13–14 October email trail now independently identifies the hearing date; see T9 below.
- 17 October email and disclosure letter, page 1 of each: the email lists a 2.8 MB conveyancing-file attachment; the letter says conveyancing copies are enclosed, with privileged material omitted and personal details redacted. This records supply of copies, not proof of completeness or of the claimed BH68 transfer.
- 24 October, displayed 22:05, page 1: Cornwell states: “Our client’s position remains that the benefit of these agreements has been transferred to him (as evidenced by item 5).” The revised schedule, page 1, labels item 5 as National Grid Wayleave Payments (1 September 2025), item 12 as the 16 October 1963 agreement and item 13 as the 7 May 1975 agreement.
- Annex J1: cover dated 26 October and substantive letter dated 25 October, challenging the alleged transfer and missing underlying records. J2, 26 October, pages 3–4: challenges the disclosure sequence and interprets the later position as a retreat to belief. The primary email does not use “belief”. Earlier and revised schedules list payment and plan categories; the relevant distinction is listing, supplying and authenticating the underlying documents.
The signed agreement, the attributed exchange, a disclosure schedule and a payment record perform different evidential functions. The reporting asks National Grid and the representatives to identify the instrument, apparatus and land behind each asserted entitlement. Historic copies are in the reviewed material; what remains contested is their application and the chain to Mr Mayo.
Read the linked BH68 investigation → · Question AE-03 → · Annex J2 source note →
Source T9 · Emails reviewed 19 September 2026
13–14 October 2025:
the court-submission trail.
The inspected email headers, bodies and attachment listings identify the 14 October 2025 strike-out hearing before Paul Mitchell (Designated Civil Judge for Cornwall, Devon and Dorset; Exeter Combined Court Centre). The 24 October specific-disclosure hearing is a separate event.
13 October · 11:00
Separate procedural statements
Miss E emailed three PDFs about clarification, judicial allocation and transcript handling to Barnstaple Hearings and Mary Kelly. These were separate from the merits bundle.
13 October · 16:37
Annex E and oral summary
Mr J emailed Barnstaple Hearings and CLO Plymouth, copying Cornwell, Bubyer, Mary Kelly and Miss E. Two direct PDF attachments: Annex E, “Formal Accusation & Request for Referral (13 October 2025)” (83 KB displayed), and the oral summary for 14 October, filename suffix “d” (approximately 3 MB). The message requested printing and placement before Mitchell.
13 October · 17:38
Corrected oral summary
Same thread and recipients. The attachments were the same-named Annex E and the oral summary with filename suffix “C”. The sender described minor corrections and asked the court to use this version if the earlier one had not been printed.
13 October · 17:58; corrected at 18:04
Main exhibit bundle supplied by link
Miss E sent a Google Drive link named “Defendant’s Bundle for Hearing 14 October 2025 (1).pdf”. Her description lists an index, supporting exhibits, Annex E, Annex F and a summary of oral statement. The original subject mistakenly said 15 October; the 18:04 resend corrected it to 14 October. Court addresses were recipients; Cornwell, Bubyer and Mr J were copied.
13 October · 17:59
Additional rebuttal directly attached
Mr J sent “Additional Document for Strike-Out Hearing – Claim No. L00BP152” to the two court addresses, copying Cornwell, Bubyer, Miss E and Mary Kelly. The direct PDF attachment was the defendant’s rebuttal to the claimant’s reply for 14 October (275 KB displayed). He requested printing and placement before the judge.
13 October · 20:39
Separate photo exhibit supplied by link
Miss E’s email said the PDF merger had not accepted the photo exhibits and requested receipt of one extra page. The body linked “Photo Exhibit for Hearing 14 October Claim L00BP152.pdf”.
14 October · 08:06
Page-numbered replacements
An email headed “USE THIS VERSION” supplied two Google Drive links: the page-numbered defendant’s bundle and the page-numbered photo exhibit for claim L00BP152. It asked the court to use these if the earlier version had not been printed. Cornwell and Bubyer were copied.
14 October · 09:46
Written court confirmation
CLO Plymouth replied in the additional-rebuttal thread. Lisa Calvert, Administrative Officer, confirmed: “I can confirm that the document has been printed and placed on file.” This confirmation identifies the rebuttal, not the entire linked bundle.
Document versions and how this source was checked
The publication inspected the original mailbox conversations, their headers, attachment names and the court’s reply. The bundle and photo references above are links contained in those emails, not direct attachments; their target contents and download history were not checked in this review. CF-01 asks the court to identify what was retrieved and placed before the judge.
The oral-summary suffixes “d” and “C” distinguish the two transmitted versions. A different local file labelled “Corrected” is not substituted for either. The 83 KB Annex E attachment is the October document; it is not described as the later 24-page February 2026 revision. The sending records do not add a statement-of-truth declaration to the supplied copies.
The 14 October reply confirms that the additional rebuttal was printed and placed on file. The question about the judge’s consideration requires the hearing record, reasons or directions. Source K and L page references describe the separately reviewed local copies; the actual email attachments have not been byte-compared with those copies.
Mailbox links, personal contact details and unredacted case-file links are retained privately. The court’s reply is transcribed exactly in the article.
Return to the article → · Read the five recipient questions →
T10 · Mailbox and attachment review · 19 September 2026
What was requested.
What was sent.
What was challenged.
The strike-out hearing was on 14 October 2025; the specific-disclosure hearing was on 24 October. The following entries come from the inspected mailbox messages and accessible attachments.
17 October · Field-conveyancing disclosure
From Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell (SRA 664668; solicitor and partner, Seldons LLP, Bideford, Devon) concerning claim L00BP152. Four attachments: the disclosure schedule, disclosure covering letter, “C’s Conveyancing File re Field” and earlier correspondence. The actual conveyancing PDF opened; its first page is a Crosse Wyatt field-sale contract dated 5 April 2024. The covering letter describes omissions for privilege and personal-data redactions. The complete contents of that attachment were not audited in this review.
18 October · Continuing fraud and withheld-disclosure notice
Miss E acknowledges further documentation, disputes its authenticity and asks for the original emails, the wayleave agreements referred to in them and authentic conveyancing/purchase records. Her allegations remain the subject of the questions.
23 October · Final notice before the 24 October hearing
Miss E sends a PDF final notice repeating those demands and asks for placement before Mitchell. The quoted Cornwell message identifies the next day’s application as specific disclosure.
24 October · Replacement email chains
Cornwell attaches PDFs titled “Email from Amelia Skea” and “Email from Adriel Miller”. He says Mayo printed them directly and delivered them personally, argues that this answers the forwarding concern and reserves his client’s right to seek wasted costs. The message contains no native-message comparison or Skea authentication of the disputed wording.
24 October · Revised schedule
A separate email attaches one schedule. Item 5 is “National Grid Wayleave Payments (1 September 2025)”; items 12 and 13 are the agreements of 16 October 1963 and 7 May 1975. Items 6–8 list a National Grid plan, an April 2025 email and a BT agreement. The agreements’ titles are listed here; their PDFs are not attached to this email. Cornwell invites requests for copies and proposes supply within 14 days.
27–28 October · Notice and acknowledgement
Mr J’s 27 October sent message attaches Annex E, J1 and J2 and seeks originals, provenance and preservation. The separate 28 October firm letter acknowledges the notice and reserves its position. J2, dated 26 October, interprets the transfer wording as a shift towards belief; that is its author’s interpretation, not Cornwell’s quoted wording.
6 November · Further disclosure in claim L00BP152
Eight attachments: a two-page covering letter; National Grid plan; undated BT agreement; the 1963 and 1975 wayleave PDFs; revised schedule; National Grid payment records labelled 2024–25; and a BT payment receipt. The letter corrects the payment-entry description to 2024 and 2025. Both pages were read. It expressly rejects an alleged change of position, maintains the denial of wrongdoing and states the firm’s willingness to cooperate with police or SRA investigations. It offers inspection of other records at the office while saying copies or photographs would not be permitted.
The 1963 PDF opened. Its first four physical pages were inspected, including the continuing terms and a schedule describing six poles and two stays. Clauses 11 and 14 contain continuation/termination and owner-for-the-time-being wording. Its age alone does not answer the question about present application. The remaining pages and the full 1975 instrument require further examination against the land and termination history.
7 November · “Continuing Evidence of Fraud – Fabricated Documentation and Misrepresentation”
Mr J’s sent reply carries forward the eight attachments and challenges their relevance to 35 BH68. It alleges reuse or manipulation of unrelated records, a plan without a corresponding authorising instrument and contradictory payment assertions. The current questions seek the specific response to those points.
Scope and publication handling
Source messages, attachment listings, the November covering letter and identified agreement pages were inspected. Review of selected material is not a complete audit of every file or every later reply. Calendar dates are used because mailbox display times differ from retained PDF copies. Personal contact details, private mailbox links and unredacted attachments remain outside the publication.
The revised account distinguishes the October non-production objection from the later November delivery. Neither receipt of a file nor a denial resolves its contested meaning; the questions specify the records needed to test that meaning.
T6 · What a reservation means for these questions
A reservation of position is not an admission. The useful questions concern whether it was an interim or final response, what was checked and which reasons or records support the position ultimately taken. Where the general pre-action Practice Direction applies, paragraph 6 envisages a reasoned response and key documents. That does not make every journalistic enquiry a pre-action claim. Read the targeted question
T7 · The verified pleading, email exhibit and redaction question
The 743-page June 2026 trial bundle was examined at the following physical PDF pages. This note identifies the inspected material; it does not reproduce the unredacted bundle.
- Pages 22–36: second amended Particulars of Claim, marked filed 23 September 2025. Paragraph 42, page 33, asserts acquisition of National Grid/Openreach wayleave benefits and expressly relies on MJM2 pages 20–25.
- Pages 35–38: statement of truth, Cornwell’s signature and MJM2 cover. The signature date is 23 September 2025, with September handwritten over February. The statement verifies the pleading’s facts; it is not an express certification that every attached message is an untouched native original.
- Pages 58–63 / MJM2 pages 20–25: six email exhibit pages. The National Grid chain begins with Cornwell-to-Cornwell forwarding on 31 January 2025 at 15:19; the Openreach chain has a 15:24 forwarding header. The reproduced Mayo request names BH67 and BH68. The disputed attribution and insertion allegation still require comparison with the retained original messages.
- Pages 187–190: allocation order headed 6 December 2024. Paragraph 1 allocates the claim to the multi-track; the directions note refers to the 21 November hearing. No later reallocation was established in this review.
No redaction/self-forwarding explanation was found in the inspected pleading, exhibit cover or six email pages. A separate notice or disclosure-list entry was not established by that inspection and is specifically requested.
The explanation: keep the sources distinct.
The family’s October rebuttal, oral summary and SRA submission describe a later explanation involving privileged material. The SRA submission, physical page 7 / internal page 3, points to a Reply associated with the 14 October application. Cornwell’s original Reply was not located in the focused local and mailbox search.
On 18 September 2026, Mr J additionally recalled an oral explanation before Paul Mitchell, possibly at a strike-out hearing, and his own objection. The hearing date, exact words and any ruling are not established. These written and oral accounts may concern more than one occasion; neither is substituted for the missing original Reply or transcript.
Rules linked to the questions
CPR 31.19(3)–(4) provides for a written withholding claim and grounds, in the disclosure list or, without a list, to the person seeking inspection. PD 31B, paragraphs 3, 33 and 35 covers scope, native-format disclosure and altered electronic copies. Paragraph 35 requires notification and preservation of the original; ordinary copying/access metadata changes are excepted. Neither provision prescribes black rectangles.
CPR 32.14 concerns a false statement made or caused in a verified document without honest belief in its truth. That requires identifying the actual statement and state of knowledge, not merely a forwarding header. SRA Code 1.4 and 2.1–2.2 addresses misleading conduct and the integrity of evidence. Applicability must be checked against the dates, disclosure procedure and any relevant court directions.
Read the article section → · Read the regulatory questions →
Handling and scope
This was a focused version and response review, not an exhaustive audit of the complete trial archive or mailbox. Original documents remain unchanged. Private correspondence is summarised here; signatures, private contact details and unredacted source files are not published.