Eight filed grounds · Plain-English guide
Different issues. A connected challenge.
The grounds allege that errors in the handling of evidence and procedure affected the property findings, credibility assessments and costs. Each entry below identifies the objection, the answer sought and the reporting that develops it.
Ground 1 · Filed grounds, bundle p. 20
Was the evidence judged by the same standard?
Miss E alleges a cumulative pattern of unequal treatment: evidence supporting her case was excluded or overlooked, while late material against her was accepted and adverse motives were attributed to her. She asks the appeal court to examine the judgment’s impartiality.
The answer sought: Where are the reasons that answer the alleged difference in scrutiny between the two sides?
Ground 2 · Filed grounds, bundle p. 20
How could she answer evidence she says she was not shown?
She challenges late videos and photographs allegedly not shown or put to her, unresolved document disputes and the exclusion or non-consideration of supporting material. She also says the trial ended without the further hearing time contemplated and without her presenting her case fully.
The answer sought: Identify when the material was served, shown and put to her—and where her opportunity to answer is recorded.
Ground 3 · Filed grounds, bundle p. 20
Which evidence supports the findings used against her?
Miss E disputes factual findings and admissions or positions attributed to her. The ground covers obstruction, historic incidents and use, National Grid apparatus and wayleave evidence, boundary history, settlement efforts and earlier applications. She argues that material contrary evidence was not properly considered.
The answer sought: Place each disputed finding beside the actual pleading, evidence and reasons relied on.
Ground 4 · Filed grounds, bundle p. 21
Which claim and counterclaim did the court decide?
She challenges retrospective dispensation of service, the disputed joinder and amendment scope, and treatment of her restored Defence and Counterclaim. The July 2025 restoration order retained a qualification about the scope of consequential amendments; her appeal asks how the court resolved that issue.
The answer sought: Identify the operative versions, the authorised scope and the ruling on each disputed amendment.
Ground 5 · Filed grounds, bundle p. 21
What happened to the conveyance, the boundary evidence and the risks?
Miss E disputes the findings about the boundary and permissible use of the access, including heavy vehicles. She relies on the conveyance, the claimant’s planning description of the route, National Grid records and previous-owner evidence, together with the missing or unresolved material affecting the boundary.
The answer sought: Show where the competing evidence and the route’s physical limits were reconciled with the rights declared.
Ground 6 · Filed grounds, bundle p. 21
Calling a concern baseless does not identify the missing record.
She argues that authenticity and disclosure concerns were dismissed without being determined. Her ground distinguishes withdrawing an application from resolving the underlying conveyancing-file and primary-record issues, and challenges the later use of those unresolved matters against her credibility, conduct and costs.
The answer sought: Which primary records resolved each concern, and where is that determination recorded?
Ground 7 · Filed grounds, bundle pp. 21–22
£64,800: what is the reasoned basis?
Miss E challenges the costs decisions and payment on account, including their dependence on disputed findings. She raises partial success, the failed hedge claim, settlement efforts, reserved costs, allocation between parties and periods, the indemnity basis and the calculation of the sum.
The answer sought: Explain the allocation by issue, party and period—and identify the calculation supporting £64,800.
Ground 8 · Filed grounds, bundle p. 22
How was she to challenge written reasons she had not received?
She says the lengthy oral judgment was delivered from prepared text that was not supplied, while requests concerning a publicly funded transcript, an extension linked to the transcript and a stay were refused. She records receiving the sealed order on 11 August and filing the next day.
The answer sought: What effective opportunity did she have to prepare her challenge, and how were the transcript and timing difficulties addressed?
Event dates, not publication dates
The appeal’s paper trail.
- Main judgment delivered.
The notice identifies Walsh’s decision in the County Court at Barnstaple, sitting at Exeter.
- Sealed order received, according to her appeal.
Ground 8 records the delay and its effect on preparing her challenge.
- Signed notice and Bristol court stamp.
The submission receipt records an appellant’s notice submitted to Bristol at 3:22 pm. This was 21 calendar days after the judgment.
- Court circulates the sealed notice.
The HMCTS notification was sent to Miss E, Mr J and Seldons. The covering letter confirms KA-2026-BRS-000028 and says the application will be referred to a Section 9 High Court Judge for consideration.
Why does CA-2026-002125 also appear in the correspondence?
The correspondence also records a separate Court of Appeal filing. The subsequent jurisdiction correspondence directed her towards Bristol; she pointed to her Bristol submission of 12 August. The Court of Appeal reference and a request to transfer the High Court appeal to London are separate parts of the routing history. Her 18 September email continues to identify both references and renews the request for independent determination. The reviewed record does not show a completed London transfer or a grant of permission.
What she asked the appeal court to do.
Miss E seeks permission to appeal and to amend or supplement her grounds after an approved transcript. Her requested relief includes a stay of specified costs and enforcement provisions, appropriate interim protection, setting aside the judgment insofar as it affects her, a retrial before a different judge or substituted orders, a transcript at public expense and transfer to London.
The grounds are filed. We will follow the decisions and the further evidence. The reviewed material does not include a decision determining these grounds.
Read the appeal. Test the particulars. Follow the evidence.
Eight grounds, the signed notice and the dated court record.
Five selected challenges from her later working schedule, with source references.
His separate statement sent to the courts on 19 August, with eight published page images.
Source EFA · Reviewed 22 September 2026
The filed copy—not the earlier working draft.
“Attached Documents KA-2026-BRS-000028”, HMCTS CMS email of 17 August 2026, with attachment KA-2026-BRS-000028-Documents.pdf. The notice bears the Bristol High Court stamp dated 12 August. Its grounds occupy physical PDF pages 15–17, printed bundle pages 20–22.
The 19-page attachment contains the signed N161, representation and additional-party sheets, eight grounds and a two-page court letter. It reproduces part of a larger 31-page filing. The separate Section 11 statement and other supporting material referenced in the notice are not reproduced in this court attachment.
The notice records the fuller skeleton argument as to follow the transcript or directions. The unsigned seven-ground preparation copy is not used as the filed appeal. This source-led summary leaves signatures, private contact details and personal vulnerability information out of the publication.
Response record: the questions summarised here arise from the filed grounds and link to the publication’s existing questions. Publication is not recorded as service of a new question pack. Any permission decision, substantive appeal ruling or response will be linked to the issue it addresses.
Timothy Edmund Walsh · professional identity and questions → Supply a relevant ruling or response →
The family’s challenge is now traceable.
Not one undifferentiated grievance: eight grounds, identified records and practical consequences. We will connect the further particulars and appeal decisions to this framework as they become available.
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
- Filed appeal reviewed · Eight grounds
Eight grounds. One filed appeal.
Miss E’s signed, court-stamped appeal is now traced from the 12 August filing to the 17 August court notification. Eight grounds connect the alleged unequal treatment, evidence, property findings and costs to the existing reporting and her developing rebuttal. Bristol appeal reference: KA-2026-BRS-000028.
Read the eight grounds and filing record
Substantive additions and corrections will be recorded here. The full case can be followed through Latest developments.
Stay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
Follow what changes when another document, account or answer enters the record.
Follow Daux Scythe, our presenter, on LinkedIn for new reporting, evidence reviews and significant developments. The website remains the home of the articles, documents and response record.
This opens his profile; choose Follow on LinkedIn.