Allegations & Questions · Jack Webb
The issues. The record. The answer.
Related background. No separate allegation is made against this party.
Professional affiliation & public office
Jack Webb · Barrister · 3PB Barristers
Organisation: 3PB Barristers.
Chambers affiliation recorded in the professional profile described below.
Documented involvement
Jack Webb’s official 3PB profile expressly lists this claim reference and describes his role for the claimant. This confirms a professional connection to the case, not what he said in a particular hearing or any allegation of wrongdoing. The hearing record has not been supplied.
Official 3PB chambers profile for Jack Webb, Land and Boundaries section, checked 12 September 2026. The external profile names the protected contributors, so it is not reproduced or directly linked in this draft.
Questions connected to this party
The question connections.
No question in this register is recorded as sent directly to Jack Webb. Being named in a document is not the same as being asked a question.
Related questions · see recipient details.
Representation context · delivery of this question not established
Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?
Mr J says the April 2025 plan was introduced late in the proceedings and relied upon in court to support Mr Mayo’s claimed BH68 rights. Why was it introduced at that stage, and what exactly was it presented as proving? Given Nick Shackson’s later description of a general-area map, “not any particular title”, what justified relying on it for that purpose? Identify the document and the assertion it supported. Where is the executed BH68 wayleave agreement in Mr Mayo’s name and its accompanying plan that the family says it repeatedly requested? If your position rests on an older agreement or another instrument, identify it and explain how it applies to the relevant land and BH68. Identify the accompanying statement of truth, its signatory and the precise assertions it verified, including which email version was exhibited. The family alleges that the plan was used to fill the gap exposed by its demand for the underlying agreement and associated plan. What instructions or requests led to obtaining it, and which executed instrument did you say it belonged to? The supplied forwarding header records Mr Mayo sending Shackson’s email to Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell (SRA 664668; solicitor and partner, Seldons LLP, Bideford, Devon) on 16 October 2025. Identify the precise court exhibit and assertion it supported. When did you receive Shackson’s later general-area explanation, and where was that qualification or any correction put before the court? Mr J now reports that the email and map were supplied to Dennis Venn for a boundary survey without Miss E’s agreement and linked plan 83920/SI. What was supplied, by whom and when? Produce the instructions and document index. If her agreement and plan were omitted, why? Once Shackson’s later general-area qualification was available, was it passed to the surveyor and the court? What underlying instrument connected the exchange attributed to Skea and Shackson’s plan to the same claimed BH68 entitlement? Identify precisely what each was relied on to prove and how that case addressed Miss E’s agreement, plan and pole-location evidence.
Nick Shackson — Estates Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc; Barnstaple, North Devon, in the 2024 correspondence · National Grid letter, October 2024 ↗
Why this matters Fair presentation
On Mr J’s account, the plan was relied upon in court despite not being suitable as a wayleave-agreement plan. The integrity issue is the gap between what a document was presented as proving and what it could support. Producing the filing, the agreement and the explanation for the late introduction would allow that gap to be tested. Identify the agreement’s terms, parties and scope.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
Mr Shackson’s 10 February 2026 explanation describes a general-area map, “not any particular title”, and says it was not produced through registered chartered-surveyor survey work. This does not answer why it was reportedly introduced and relied upon in court, or identify the executed agreement requested by the family.
Updated 13 September 2026 from Mr J’s account and the plan correspondence. Mr J says the disputed emails were put before the court in material supported by a statement of truth. The October 2025 submissions now reviewed also make that allegation. The question addresses the reported late introduction of the plan, court reliance and supporting agreement. It has not been sent by this publication. Expanded on 19 September 2026 with the 16 October forwarding header and a request for the handling of the later qualification; not sent by this publication. Updated 25 September 2026 with Mr J’s account of the material supplied to Dennis Venn. The instructions and document bundle have not yet been reviewed; the proposed questions seek to test that account.
Documents: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5 · C, p. 2, forwarding header · B, pp. 2–3, later explanation
Related reporting
Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan: the questions in the record.
A place for the answer
Have something to add?
National Grid, Mr Shackson, Amelia Skea (National Grid Wayleave Services; Bodmin, Cornwall, in the attributed April 2024 email signature), Mr Mayo, Seldons Solicitors, Geldards LLP, or any other party mentioned: if you have information, documents, a correction or a response, please contact us. Identify the article and question you are addressing. Material replies will be considered and reflected fairly alongside the record.
Contact the editorial desktheunansweredrecord@gmail.com