Latest documents reviewed · 22 September 2026
Five grounds. The decisions themselves are challenged.
Miss E is challenging more than an amount. She is challenging the refusal to let her examine its foundation—and the handling of that challenge. Her signed protective appeal notice and five grounds are dated 11 September. Her 22-page formal response is dated 10 September. Both are now connected to the order, the costs trail and the named questions below.
Read all five grounds (PDF) → Read her full formal response (PDF) →
The wrong proceeding?
Her separate April application, KB-2026-BRS-000052, was, she says, dealt with under an earlier withdrawn appeal. The September order then carries further court and reference changes. Identify the authority and procedural record.
Independence challenged. The hearing reserved to the same judge.
She alleges apparent bias in the cumulative handling, including delay, allocation and refusal of transfer. Where were her actual objections answered?
Refusals without reasons in the written order.
Her third ground asks how she can understand and challenge the refusals when the written order does not explain them. Produce the recorded reasons.
The costs pursued; their underlying record still sought.
Ground 4 challenges the refusal of N260 disclosure. It calls disclosure essential to testing the assessment and the claimed service. Follow the dates and amounts.
The reissued order compounds the confusion.
Changed references and parties, a retained August deadline and September service form her fifth ground. Put the two orders side by side.
An order is not an explanation. Name the proceeding. Show the calculation. Identify the reasons.
Source: grounds 1–5, pages 1–4. Her notice seeks permission, an extension, a stay and independent determination; the reviewed bundle contains no decision granting those requests.
The March 2025 assessment · The subsequent disclosure challenge
Show how the amount was reached.
Miss E’s 19 August skeleton and 10 September response set out the following account. It gives the original assessment and alleged later transmission separate dates—an important distinction.
The costs hearing. Miss E identifies a £3,500 assessment and £1,750 liability. She reports that Mayo later described an original £3,800 figure. Which statement and calculations were before Paul Mitchell (Designated Civil Judge for Cornwall, Devon and Dorset; Exeter Combined Court Centre)?
The alleged transmission date, identified in Miss E’s account of Mayo’s statement at the 10 March 2026 hearing. That is seven days after the hearing. What was filed and served before assessment, and what was sent on this later date?
The date of the costs order identified in her submissions. Her formal response says the £1,750 was pursued through enforcement, including a Third Party Debt Order.
The application for disclosure of the underlying N260 forms was refused. Miss E now challenges that refusal in Ground 4.
The question to Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon), Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell (SRA 664668; solicitor and partner, Seldons LLP, Bideford, Devon) and Seldons is straightforward: if the statement was sent and can be re-sent, produce it with the original transmission record. The question to the court is equally direct: what supported the assessment, and where can Miss E inspect it? IN-07: the alleged transmission · IN-08: the calculation.
Sources: 19 August skeleton, pages 3–4; formal response, pages 10–11; appeal Ground 4, paragraphs 15–18. Read the response at page 10 →
Two further records she asks to inspect
The separate £300 fee
She says the CE-File submission, acceptance record and payment receipt were not supplied, despite the court indicating that a filing could be seen. Identify the filing, its payer, receipt and basis for recovery. IN-09 →
The £5,498.80 writ total
Her skeleton describes three costs orders combined in Writ WC000101/2026. She questions the N293A certification, issuing registry and differing accounts of issue. Reconcile the total to the individual orders and produce the certification trail. IN-10 →
Sources: formal response, pages 11–14; 19 August skeleton, pages 3–5. These are separate amounts and records—not additions to the £1,750 assessment or the later Walsh costs figure.
Her position, not an abandoned appeal
“I do not withdraw or abandon the appeal.”
“I do not withdraw or abandon the appeal. Quite the opposite: I am insisting upon its proper and independent determination.”
Miss E · 18 September 2026 email
Her email to Civil Appeals and Bristol Specialist identifies both CA-2026-002125 and KA-2026-BRS-000028. She maintains the original 12 August filing and asks for London determination, or an independent judge with no prior involvement if the appropriate court determines that the case must remain on the Western Circuit. She objects to further substantive handling involving Blohm; she does not say that a reference number alone determines jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction lawyer’s response sent on 7 September directed stay and transfer queries to Bristol and confirmed that the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction notification did not affect the High Court appeal. Miss E’s 14 September reply supplies the subsequent enforcement order and seeks further guidance. Her 18 September email renews the independent-determination request. Read the separate eight grounds against Timothy Edmund Walsh’s judgment →
Timothy Edmund Walsh — Circuit Judge, Western Circuit; appointed to Exeter Law Courts on 27 June 2022 · Official judicial appointment ↗
The requests came before this refusal
Read what Miss E had already asked Paul Mitchell.
Her public review reproduces requests dated 13 November and 12 December 2025 for the costs schedule, calculation and reasons. Those letters now sit beside paragraph 3 of this order, making the sequence visible in one place.
Read all three letter images → The allegation and the two judicial decisions →
19 August order · Paragraph 3
Costs pursued. The underlying disclosure refused. Why?
The written order expressly refuses the application for disclosure of N260 forms underlying the costs orders subject to potential challenge. That is the central decision now requiring an explanation.
Read paragraph 3 in the September order below →
In her 14 September protective-appeal email, Miss E says Mr Mayo told Master Dagnall on 10 March 2026 that his solicitors had sent the N260 on 17 March 2025 and could re-send it. She says it still has not been supplied. Her formal response challenges how the earlier costs could be enforced while she remains unable to inspect that underlying material.
If the document can be re-sent, where is it? If disclosure is refused, where are the reasons—and how is the paying party to test the calculation?
The March 2025 account in her formal response identifies a £3,500 assessment and £1,750 liability, following the 10 March hearing and order dated 21 March. This is distinct from the £64,800 payment on account challenged in the later Walsh appeal. Miss E expressly distinguishes the earlier enforcement from any question of imminent enforcement of the later Walsh costs order. She also describes a separate N260 prepared for the August hearing: the demand here concerns the underlying earlier costs material.
The rule behind the question: Practice Direction 44, paragraph 9.5, requires a signed statement of costs, following N260 as closely as possible, to be filed and served before summary assessment—normally at least 24 hours before a hearing other than a fast-track trial. Paragraph 9.6 makes unexplained noncompliance relevant to the court’s costs decision. The questions are therefore what statement was provided, when it was served and how the court dealt with any failure. Read PD44, paragraphs 9.5–9.6 →
The family’s allegation: Miss E and Mr J allege that withholding the record shields an illegitimate costs assessment from examination. Mr J further alleges that the refusal protects earlier judicial handling and forms part of the collusion he asks to be investigated. Those allegations are put against the identifiable disclosure refusal and the unanswered request for the original statement, calculation and transmission record. Her own Ground 4 identifies the practical demand: disclosure is essential to examining the assessment and its service history.
Follow the earlier costs questions → Paul Mitchell: the original assessment questions → IN-02: explain the disclosure refusal →
Two documents · One procedural challenge
Put the orders side by side.
19 August 2026 order
Heading: KA-2025-BRS-000045.
Refuses recusal, London transfer and N260 disclosure. Directs a further enforcement hearing under L00BP152, by Teams, reserved to Blohm. Requires availability by 26 August for the period 2 September–4 November.
N24 dated 8 September
County Court heading: L00BP152.
Body prints: “KA 2025 BRS 0000052”.
Repeats the refusals and lists a hearing on 9 November 2026 at 15:00, still reserved to Blohm. Retains the 26 August deadline and the availability range ending 4 November. The parties shown also change.
Jo Copp’s covering email, sent on 10 September, says the order was drawn as directed by HHJ Blohm KC
. Miss E’s objection is that the separately filed enforcement application she identifies as KB-2026-BRS-000052 has been placed under changing references without a clear explanation of its procedural identity.
The August deadline already appeared in the earlier order. The specific September discrepancy is the retained direction beside the newly fixed November hearing—not a claim that the deadline first appeared after it had expired.
Show the procedural record: what authorised the changes, which application was being decided, which directions now govern, and when were they served? IN-04 · IN-05
19 August order · Paragraphs 1 and 4
Why was the next hearing reserved to the same judge?
Miss E says she sought independent consideration of handling she challenged, rather than making the standalone recusal application described in the order. The order refuses recusal and reserves the further enforcement hearing to Blohm. Her September letters object to continued involvement and ask for an independent senior judge.
The question is what objections were before the court on 19 August, how they were evaluated and why the matter remained reserved to him. The written order states the refusals without setting out their reasons. The hearing’s reasons and any transcript are therefore important parts of the record sought.
A request for independence needs an answer addressing independence. Read IN-03 →
Her correspondence · Direct extracts
Read what Miss E actually challenged.
These are extracts from the reviewed emails; headings below are editorial. Her concerns are specific to documents, decisions and their effects.
Disclosure and enforced costs
“Mr Mayo told Master Dagnall on 10 March 2026 that the N260 had been sent by his solicitors on 17 March 2025. When Master Dagnall suggested that it be sent or re-sent to me, Mr Mayo said that his solicitors could do so. It has still never been provided to me.”
14 September · Protective appeal and jurisdiction email
The practical effect of changing proceedings
“A litigant cannot fairly be expected continually to navigate proceedings whose procedural identity, court reference and judicial character are repeatedly altered after filing, and then be prejudiced by the confusion which results.”
14 September · Protective appeal and jurisdiction email
Her challenge to the treatment of the defence
“A court cannot fairly reject a litigant’s allegations as exaggerated or unfounded without first allowing that litigant a proper opportunity to give the evidence said to support them.”
14 September · Formal objection to further involvement
Her formal objection alleges that the combined handling of evidence, costs and enforcement favours the claimant while the defence’s material objections remain unresolved. She asks for independent examination of that alleged pattern. Read her particular challenges to the judgment → Read Mr J’s published statement and allegation →
10 September 2026 · Statement for the record
Mr J’s response to the order.
Mr J replied to Jo Copp’s court email under the subject “L00BP152”, addressing Barnstaple Hearings and Bristol Specialist and copying Miss E. The thread contains the court’s automatic acknowledgement of receipt.
Selected verbatim extracts from his email:
“The 8 September 2026 order is unacceptable. It further compounds compelling evidence that dishonesty continues unabated at the Bristol and Devon Courts.”
“Denying a party the right to view underlying documentation regarding costs orders is a disgraceful and criminal decision.”
Mr J · Statement for the record, 10 September 2026
His statement also objects to Blohm’s continuing involvement and the September document’s retained August deadline. He alleges judicial corruption and says he intends to substantiate that allegation in the public interest. These are his accusations, placed beside the order and the specific requests for the reasons and underlying record.
The direct challenge to Leslie Adrian Blohm: identify the lawful and evidential basis for the disclosure refusal and the record showing how Miss E could challenge the costs calculation. IN-02 →
This is a selected transcription, not an image or complete reproduction of the email. The original court attachment in the thread is named InvokerServlet.pdf (74 KB), matching the September N24 also supplied with Miss E’s correspondence.
The sequence—not separate fragments.
Miss E files the Walsh appeal and signs her original request for London transfer.
Blohm’s enforcement-related order refuses recusal, transfer and N260 disclosure and reserves a further hearing.
The further N24 is dated 8 September and emailed by Barnstaple on 10 September. Miss E’s formal response and renewed transfer request are dated 10 September.
The signed protective N161 and five grounds are dated 11 September. They challenge the 19 August order and request permission, an extension, a stay and directions on the correct appellate route. This is separate from the 12 August Walsh appeal. The attached CE-File email confirms submission on 11 September, not acceptance, permission or the correct appellate route.
She sends the protective-appeal update to Civil Appeals and the formal objection to further involvement to Bristol Specialist, with orders and supporting letters.
She expressly continues the appeal, identifies both appeal references and renews her demand for independent determination.
Ten precise questions · Prepared 22 September 2026
The decisions require answers.
The letters contain Miss E’s requests already made. IN-01–IN-10 are the publication’s consolidated questions, not yet sent by The Unanswered Record. A response should identify the order, hearing passage or document that answers each point.
IN-01 · Leslie Adrian Blohm
Which transfer request was refused—and by whose authority?
Which proceedings and transfer request did paragraph 2 of the 19 August order determine? If that refusal extended to the separately filed Walsh appeal’s request under PD52B 2.3, identify the authority or nomination, the material considered and the recorded reasons.
Why this matters: A refusal in an enforcement-related order must be connected to the particular transfer request it decided. Read the underlying record →
IN-02 · Leslie Adrian Blohm
Why refuse the underlying costs documents?
Which N260 forms and costs orders did paragraph 3 cover? What legal basis, recorded reasons and evidence justified refusing disclosure after Miss E’s repeated requests for the costs schedule and calculation? How was she to test the assessment and claimed service? Identify the record that answers her allegation that the refusal shields an illegitimate assessment from scrutiny.
Why this matters: Her public-review letters of 13 November and 12 December 2025 request the schedule and reasons. The later order expressly refuses N260 disclosure. Read the letters and refusal together. Read the underlying record →
IN-03 · Leslie Adrian Blohm
Why reserve further consideration to the same judge?
What objection or recusal grounds were before the court on 19 August, how were they assessed, and where are the reasons for refusal recorded? Why was the further enforcement hearing reserved to Leslie Adrian Blohm, and what consideration was given to another judge?
Why this matters: The independence of the handling is itself challenged; the decision and its reasons need to address the objection actually made. Read the underlying record →
IN-04 · Leslie Adrian Blohm / HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records
What explains the changing procedural references?
Identify the orders and administrative records explaining KA-2025-BRS-000045 on the August order, L00BP152 on the September N24 and the KA/2025 reference ending 52 printed in its body. How do they relate to the separate enforcement application Miss E identifies as KB-2026-BRS-000052, and what relief was being determined?
Why this matters: The court, proceeding and route of challenge should be identifiable from the record. Read the underlying record →
IN-05 · Leslie Adrian Blohm / HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records
Which directions govern the November hearing?
The September N24 lists 9 November 2026 but retains a 26 August deadline and an availability period ending 4 November. Which directions govern, what was corrected or superseded, and when and on whom were the operative order and hearing notice served?
Why this matters: The August deadline appeared in the earlier order too. The question is how the September document operates and whether its directions were made clear. Read the underlying record →
IN-06 · HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records
Who will determine the renewed request for independent scrutiny?
Confirm the recorded status and relationship of CA-2026-002125 and KA-2026-BRS-000028, the original 12 August filing date, and the office-holder responsible for deciding the renewed transfer request. Separately identify the receipt or acceptance record and any decision on permission, extension, stay or destination for the protective N161 dated 11 September against the 19 August order.
Why this matters: The Walsh appeal and the protective challenge to the enforcement order are separate proceedings. Each needs an identifiable status and decision-maker. Read the underlying record →
IN-07 · Mark Mayo / Luke Cornwell · Seldons LLP / Seldons LLP
If the N260 was sent, where is the original transmission?
Supply the costs statement relied on for the 10 March 2025 assessment, its filing and service records, and the original email with attachment said to have been sent on 17 March 2025. If 17 March was a later transmission, when was the statement first served? Answer Miss E’s account that it could be re-sent but was subsequently refused.
Why this matters: Ground 4 and the formal response identify the claimed sending date and continued request for the document. Production would allow the account and timing to be tested. Read the underlying record →
IN-08 · Paul Mitchell / HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records
What calculation supported £3,500—and £1,750 against Miss E?
Identify the signed costs statement, calculation and submissions before Paul Mitchell at the 10 March 2025 hearing, the amount claimed, any reduction and the basis for Miss E’s £1,750 liability. What substantive answer addresses her 13 November and 12 December 2025 letters and the 29 April 2026 final notice? Supply the filing, service and response records, the operative payment deadline and recorded reasons. Where can she inspect the supporting material?
Why this matters: The public-review letters challenge the £3,500 assessment, half-payment and underlying schedule. The later Blohm order refuses disclosure. The question requires a traceable record connecting assessment, requests and refusal. Read the underlying record →
IN-09 · Luke Cornwell · Seldons LLP / Seldons LLP / HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records
The £300 fee: where are the filing and payment records?
Identify the application said to have generated the £300 fee. Supply the CE-File submission and acceptance records, payment receipt and order relied on for recovery from Miss E. Her response says these were requested but not produced: where are they?
Why this matters: A filing said to be visible to the court should be identifiable by its date, reference, acceptance and fee record. This is separate from the £1,750 assessment. Read the underlying record →
IN-10 · Seldons LLP / HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records
Reconcile the writ total with the orders and issuing record.
Identify the three costs orders said to support £5,498.80 under Writ WC000101/2026. Supply the N293A, certification, issuing-registry record and any correction. What records resolve Miss E’s allegations about differing Sandbrook accounts and the Central Office issue, and where were those objections determined?
Why this matters: The skeleton and formal response challenge the chain from individual costs orders to certification and enforcement. Each link should be traceable. Read the underlying record →
Source IS · Reviewed correspondence and attachments
The records behind this chapter.
- “Latest appeal docs”, received 22 September: six attachments, 50 pages reviewed: the Civil Appeals cover letter; signed N161 and five grounds dated 11 September; seven-page skeleton for 19 August; two-page position summary and 22-page formal response dated 10 September. The grounds and response are available below.
- 18 September email: “CA-2026-002125 / KA-2026-BRS-000028 – Formal objection to Bristol allocation and renewed request for independent London determination”. Both the original 12 August transfer request and the signed 10 September renewal were reviewed.
- 14 September, 09:05: “CA-2026-002125 [Miss E] v Mayo - Protective appeal filed, further developments and urgent jurisdictional guidance requested”, including the quoted jurisdiction-lawyer response.
- 14 September, 15:04 and 15:54 correction: “L00BP152 / KB-2026-BRS-000052 – Formal objection to further involvement of HHJ Blohm KC”. The correction supplies the actual PDF in place of a temporary download attachment.
- 19 August sealed order: paragraph 3 is the disclosure refusal; paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 concern recusal, transfer and further hearing.
- Formal response, 10 September: all 22 pages reviewed. Pages 9–12 contain the transfer-authority and N260 challenges; a separate two-page position summary was also reviewed.
- Mr J’s statement, 10 September: the “L00BP152” email replying to Jo Copp, with Barnstaple’s automatic receipt acknowledgement. Selected extracts are reproduced above.
- 8 September N24 and 10 September covering email: reviewed for the references, hearing date, directions and statement that the order was drawn as directed by Blohm.
Read the sources
The order and the written objections
Five grounds — 11 September 2026
Read or download the five-page grounds →
Read page 3: reasons, disclosure and the reissued order
Formal response — 10 September 2026
Read or download the full 22-page response →
Read pages 10–11: costs, transmission and the £300 fee
Court order — 8 September 2026
Source pages 1 and 3, containing all eight operative paragraphs.
Page 3: costs reserved
Selected email extracts
Transcribed passages from Miss E’s 14 and 18 September emails and Mr J’s 10 September statement.
Miss E’s extracts
Mr J’s extracts
Current record: this chapter records her objections and requests. No later order granting London transfer or determining the substantive appeals has been reviewed for this update. Relevant decisions and replies can be sent to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com.
The question is not whether she will stop asking.
It is whether the record will answer her: the underlying costs statement, its claimed transmission, the reasons for refusing disclosure and the authority for the decisions controlling her challenge.
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
- Original letters · Connected judicial decisions
She asked for the costs record. Then disclosure was refused.
The three images from Miss E’s public review are now readable on the website. Her November and December 2025 requests to Paul Mitchell are connected to Leslie Adrian Blohm’s later N260 refusal, the family’s suppression allegation and the protective appeal.
Read the letters, refusal and named questions - Five grounds · Source documents published
Show the calculation. Explain the refusal.
Miss E’s five protective appeal grounds and full 22-page response are now available to read. A dated costs trail connects the March 2025 assessment, alleged transmission and August disclosure refusal. Four additional questions ask for the original sending record, calculation, £300 fee evidence and writ certification.
Read the grounds, documents and ten questions - Orders and correspondence · Independent scrutiny
The appeal continues. Who will scrutinise the process?
Miss E’s 14 and 18 September correspondence is connected to the August disclosure refusal and September N24. Six questions ask Leslie Adrian Blohm and the court record to explain the costs-disclosure decision, transfer authority, references and directions. Her separate Walsh appeal continues.
Read the orders, her words and named questions
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.