Mark John Mayo.
The N260 account.
A proposed contempt application.

One account. One focused allegation.

Miss E alleges that Mark John Mayo knowingly lied to Master Dagnall on 10 March 2026 about his solicitors sending the particular March 2025 N260. Her case is that the document he described did not exist, was not sent on 17 March 2025, and that he knew his account was false.

The rough hearing transcription records Mayo attributing sending to his solicitors, qualifying the date with “I believe”, and offering to arrange resending. Miss E and Mr J rely on their hearing recollections, their reported nonreceipt and searches, repeated requests, and the subsequent correspondence. The rough transcription is not an approved transcript.

Miss E asks for the prolonged nonproduction to be examined as part of the evidence supporting her allegation. The allegation remains contested; nonproduction is not itself a court finding or an automatic admission.

If the March 2025 N260 was sent, which exact document and original message establish that account? ENF-01: the existing request for the email, recipients and attachment.

The record the proposed application must confront.

1. 21 March 2025 — the costs order. It records a costs schedule, £3,500 assessed and £1,750 including VAT payable by Miss E. Its reference to a schedule is material to the dispute about what existed. Read the costs foundation.
2. 10 March 2026 — the hearing account. The oral exchange before Master Dagnall is the statement under challenge. Read the hearing exchange and connected evidence.
3. 13 March 2026 — the amended order. It corrects the N460/N260 reference and records a suggestion, expressly not an order, to search for and send the document. The proposed allegation concerns the oral account, not disobedience of a production order.
4. 17 March and 1 April 2026 — the firm’s correspondence. Seldons asserts sending to the court, copied to Miss E, on 17 March 2025 at 15:37. Its refusal to provide further documents voluntarily, its reasons and the family’s challenge are retained in the preparation record. Read the request and refusal chronology.

The demand is for an examinable record—not another assertion that it was sent. The existing firm-level questions ask who checked the original message and attachment and who authorised the response.

Miss E describes the enforcement dispute as one of the early events that made her uneasy about remaining at home. She and Mr J report continuing disruption and accommodation costs alongside other events. The separate funding and proposed damages inquiry follows those alleged losses and their causes.

Cornwell and Seldons: further proceedings reserved.

Miss E also alleges that Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell and Seldons LLP participated in the false account. She relies particularly on the firm’s dispatch assertion and refusal correspondence.

She reserves seeking further contempt proceedings and civil damages claims against Cornwell and/or Seldons where supported by the evidence and legal requirements, including relevant evidence and findings emerging from the proposed Mayo application. The current draft names Mayo; any further case must establish each proposed respondent’s own conduct and responsibility. A finding against Mayo would not automatically determine another person’s liability, and contempt is not itself an award of damages.

The next update will follow the filing record.

The hearing took place before Master Dagnall in London. The existing writ/application was subsequently transferred to Bristol. The draft requests London venue; no London transfer is represented as granted.

When Miss E supplies her court-submission email, this page will record what it establishes. Submission, court acknowledgment, issue, service and any decision are separate milestones. No new contempt case number, hearing date or response deadline is announced.

The legal procedure is CPR Part 81: the allegation must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The court will determine the application, not the publication.

The private forms, affidavit drafts and unredacted exhibits are not public downloads. The linked reporting preserves the wider context. Any future publication copy will require its own privacy review.