One case · Connected questions
One hearing. Two demands for the record.
Mr J reports that at the hearing on 10 March 2025, Mr Mayo relied on the email attributed to Amelia Skea to support his claimed BH68 wayleave, and a costs order was made against Miss E at that same hearing.
Miss E and Mr J say the underlying costs statement and calculation remain missing from the material disclosed to her despite repeated requests. They allege deliberate withholding because, in their view, no supporting record can justify the amount imposed.
That is why the missing record matters: without the calculation and reasons, Miss E cannot properly examine or challenge how the amount imposed on her was reached.
What did the email establish? What documents and reasons supported the costs? This investigation follows both questions.
Read the costs reporting → · Questions for Judge Paul Mitchell →
The family’s costs allegation and account of the hearing
The allegation · Contributor account
The family’s allegation: an unjustified order used as pressure.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the costs order was fictitious and illegitimate, intended to exert coercive pressure rather than reflect a justified assessment. They point to the continued non-production of the underlying costs statement, calculation and adequate reasons as the basis for that allegation.
Mr J says Miss E presented her signed BH68 wayleave agreement at the hearing, while Mr Mayo relied on the disputed email attributed to Amelia Skea. He questions why costs were imposed against Miss E in those circumstances and what the court recorded about the competing material.
Mr J says requests for the basis of the amount have been put to Judge Paul Mitchell, Jack Webb, Luke Cornwell and Mark John Mayo. The question is specific: identify the costs statement, the work and figures claimed, the filing and service record, and the reasons for the amount ordered. If those records cannot be produced, explain why.
10 March hearing. 17 March claimed service.
Mr J also reports that Mr Mayo stated under oath that the N260 was sent to all parties on 17 March 2025. Miss E and Mr J dispute that account, say no statement or proof of that service has been produced to them, and allege a deliberate false statement. They seek investigation of that allegation as possible contempt of court.
The reported service date is seven days after the 10 March hearing. What costs statement was before the judge on 10 March? What was allegedly sent on 17 March, to whom and by what method? Produce that document and the dispatch and service evidence, and explain how the dates relate to the assessment and the order dated 21 March.
For summary assessment of costs, Practice Direction 44, paragraph 9.5, requires an itemised, signed statement broadly following N260; for hearings other than fast-track trials, filing and service are required at least 24 hours before the hearing. Paragraph 9.6 addresses non-compliance in the court’s costs decision. The question is what was supplied, when, and how any failure was addressed. Practice Direction 44, paragraphs 9.5–9.6 ↗
What justified the amount, and what consideration was given to Miss E’s evidence and objections? The hearing record and the costs record are both needed to examine the family’s challenge.
The answer still sought · Contributor update · 12 September 2026
Where is the promised response?
On 7 May 2026, Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP said he would respond substantively to recent correspondence addressed to Nick Shackson. He separately acknowledged the letter before action sent to Amelia Skea. [J, p. 1]
Mr J reports that, as of 12 September 2026, neither he nor Miss E has received subsequent substantive answers to the questions about authorship, authenticity and the agreement relied upon for BH68. The letters, referral and acknowledgements are documented. The underlying originals and the particular agreement remain unidentified in the supplied replies.
Where is the agreement? Where are the original emails? Where is the promised substantive response?
The reported absence of an answer matters: it leaves the family unable to check the documents said to support the competing claim. A promise to respond leaves that task unfinished. If the answers exist, identify them and produce the supporting records. If they do not, explain what prevents an answer and when it will be given. Read the question for Geldards.
The connected questions · Updated 13 September 2026
The plan. The missing agreement. The disputed email.
Mr J says the April 2025 plan was introduced late in the proceedings and relied upon in court—not merely circulated. He says subsequent enquiries established that it was not a plan suitable to accompany a wayleave agreement. The documented later explanation from Nick Shackson calls it a general-area map, “not any particular title”. Mr J challenges why that plan was produced and relied upon when, he says, the executed BH68 agreement in Mr Mayo’s name was never produced. [C, pp. 1–2] [B, pp. 2–7]
His concern about the email is connected, not separate: the agreement remains unproduced to the family; Amelia Skea has not provided the authentication they seek; and the printout shows Luke Cornwell forwarding the exchange to himself. Mr J’s submissions allege editing, and he says the explanation came only after challenge. Taken together, he says these points raise serious suspicions about the authenticity of the email and the use made of it in court. The questions below ask for the records that can test that allegation. [F, pp. 1–2] [G, pp. 2–5] [K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18]
- The agreement: which executed agreement or other instrument supports the claimed BH68 rights for Mr Mayo, and how does it relate to Miss E’s signed agreement? Compare the agreement records.
- The plan and its court use: why was it introduced at that stage, what was it said to establish, and where is the agreement justifying that use? Read the question for Luke Cornwell.
- The originals: can Amelia Skea and National Grid authenticate the attributed exchange by producing the retained messages, headers and attachments? Why do the supplied replies contain no authentication answer? Examine the disputed copy.
- The changes: what did Luke Cornwell change, if anything, where was it disclosed, and when was the explanation given? The October 2025 submissions already alleged editing and challenged the redaction explanation. Read the submission’s exact words.
- The follow-through: where is the substantive response promised by Mark Hacking about the Shackson correspondence, and which answer supplies the requested records? Read the follow-up question.
Why these questions belong together: the agreement identifies the claimed rights; the originals establish the wording; the version history shows how that wording was presented; and the response trail shows whether the challenge was addressed. Answering one does not answer the others. Each unresolved point leaves a specific part of the account uncheckable.
If the records support the position advanced, identify them. If our account is wrong, correct it with the documents. If a record cannot be supplied, explain why. The purpose is an answer readers can examine—not another assertion they must take on trust.
The companies must address their own part
What does the company stand behind?
National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc: Miss E and Mr J direct their allegation about the supply and description of the plan to the company as well as Mr Shackson. Separately, they challenge how the company handled Miss E’s requests to authenticate the emails and identify the relevant agreement. A new executive-review question asks who took responsibility, what was checked, where the outcome is recorded and when any unresolved points will be answered. Read National Grid’s full question pack.
Seldons LLP: Mr J alleges deliberate misrepresentation in the handling of the disputed email copy and directs his allegation of fraud to Luke Cornwell and the firm. The newly reviewed 27 October 2025 email expressly addressed the solicitor personally and the firm corporately, and demanded preservation of originals and metadata. The firm-level allegation is therefore documented in that earlier notice, not just in his present account. What did Seldons preserve, check and answer after that notice? [N, pp. 1–2] Read Seldons’ full question pack.
Each pack brings the allegations, exact questions, source notes, recorded replies and response instructions together. The new executive and firm-review questions have not been sent by this publication; they are not recorded as overdue.
The issue in brief
One pole. Which agreement supports each claim?
Miss E has supplied a signed 2024 agreement with National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc and an attached signed plan identifying BH68. Mr J says Mr Mayo relied on a competing claim without producing the corresponding BH68 agreement. Nick Shackson’s later reply says existing wayleaves transferred to Mr Mayo—but does not identify the individual agreements or establish BH68 coverage. That is the documentary gap at the centre of this article. [A, pp. 4–6] [B, pp. 5–7] [D, pp. 3–5]
Why it matters: the family says an impression of contractual rights was used to support Mr Mayo’s position in a boundary dispute. The investigation asks whether the underlying records support that impression. An agreement, a payment entry and a map are different records; their meaning should not be left to assumption.
Miss E’s supplied agreement
A signed agreement dated 4 June 2024, a 14-year term, a one-off £2,000 payment provision and a signed apparatus plan. PCC’s letters accompany it. The fee receipt mentioned by PCC is not itself proof of National Grid’s payment. [A, pp. 1–6]
The claimed position for Mr Mayo
An attributed April 2024 email describing a payment-record update, a later plan and a February 2026 transfer assertion. The supplied material does not identify the executed agreement said to give him rights concerning BH68. [F, pp. 1–2] [B, pp. 5–7]
If both arrangements are said to apply, explain how. Identify the parties, land, apparatus, dates and basis of the claimed transfer. Produce the agreement and explain its scope.
The disputed wording · Re-examined 13 September 2026
“Your wayleave.” Which agreement? Which poles?
The words matter. The two-page printout joins a message attributed to Mark John Mayo, dated 9 April 2024, to a reply attributed to Amelia Skea of National Grid, dated 15 April 2024. Her signature identifies Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office. The company addressed by this investigation is National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc. [F, pp. 1–2]
Mr Mayo’s attributed request
The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68.
The message requests a transfer into his name from 5 April 2024. It says a marked plan and a solicitor’s completion letter were attached, with a certified transfer copy available if required. Those attachments are not in this printout. [F, pp. 1–2]
Ms Skea’s attributed reply
Your wayleave will be paid annually in advance in September by cheque for an amount of £25.00 based on current rates.
It also says records have been updated, with arrears backdated to ownership. The displayed reference is 2624773. [F, p. 1]
Read together, the request and reply can convey that the wayleave update answered an enquiry about both named poles. The pole numbers appear in the incoming message, not repeated in Ms Skea’s reply. That makes authentication of the linked exchange essential: did she receive that precise request, did she send that reply to it, and which instruments supported “your wayleave”?
Mr J reports that neither a BH68 nor a BH67 wayleave agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. If “your wayleave” referred to an existing or transferred agreement, identify it—for each pole—and show how it applies. The original request, reply, attachments and agreement records should establish the connection the printout appears to make.
The dates matter. These attributed April messages predate Miss E’s June 2024 agreement. The records must explain the relationship between that April payment update and the later signed agreement for BH68.
Why the self-forwarded copy?
The outer printed header dated 31 January 2025 names Luke Cornwell – Seldons as both sender and recipient, with the subject “FW: Wayleave Transfer”. Mr Cornwell is a solicitor and partner at Seldons Solicitors (Seldons LLP), Bideford, Devon; the firm's public office and professional sources are listed on his profile. Mr J questions the handling of the disputed exchange; handwritten annotations on the copy allege fabrication. [F, p. 1]
Why was this copy self-forwarded? Was any wording added, removed or changed? Produce the received message, the forwarded version and their full headers so the versions can be compared. The original messages and attachment package are the records needed to answer those questions. Read the question for Luke Cornwell and Seldons. Read the authentication question for Amelia Skea.
The particularised allegation
Was BH68 added to an exchange about BH67?
The family’s expanded Annex E alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 references into an exchange originally concerning BH67, then used the altered material with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. It identifies the self-forwarding header, alleged font changes and shifts between “wayleave” and “wayleaves” as features of that allegation. Pages 19–20 set out the alleged mechanism; pages 12–13 connect it to the missing underlying instrument and disputed plan. [M, pp. 12–13, 19–20]
That is the allegation to answer: was BH68 in the message National Grid actually received, or was it introduced into a later version? Compare the retained incoming email, the reply, Mr Cornwell’s self-forwarded copy and the court version. Identify every substantive difference, who made it and when.
Amelia Skea: authenticate the words—or identify what is wrong.
In his account to this publication on 13 September 2026, Mr J alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea: either in supplying misleading wording or in failing to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. He says the unproduced agreements and repeated unresolved verification requests are why he raises that suspicion. The expanded Annex E particularises the insertion allegation against Mr Cornwell; this additional allegation about Ms Skea’s knowledge is Mr J’s current account.
Did you write “your wayleave” in response to the displayed request naming BH67 and BH68? If so, which agreements and records justified it? If that is not what you received or sent, identify the false or changed passage and when you first became aware of it. What correction or notification followed? National Grid should identify the officer responsible for checking its retained records and supplying the answer. [G, pp. 2–5] [H, pp. 1–3]
Why it matters: an apparent third-party confirmation can give a disputed claim credibility it would not otherwise have. The authenticity question goes directly to whether the words relied upon came from National Grid and whether its records support the rights being asserted.
Primary court material reviewed · 18 September 2026
The pleading is identified.
Where is the redaction notice?
Paragraph 42 of the second amended Particulars of Claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25 as evidence of a wayleave transfer. The June trial bundle contains that pleading, its statement of truth and Luke Cornwell’s signature dated 23 September 2025, followed by the disputed email exhibit. The National Grid chain names Cornwell as both sender and recipient on 31 January 2025. No redaction explanation appears on the inspected pleading, exhibit cover or six email pages.
Mr J recalls a later privilege/redaction explanation in court, possibly at a strike-out hearing before Judge Paul Mitchell, and says he objected. The hearing, date and precise words remain to be confirmed. His October submissions separately refer to a written Reply.
If the copy was edited, identify the written notice, the material withheld and the preserved original. What did the court and Miss E receive, and when? The expanded article connects these questions to CPR 31.19, PD 31B paragraph 35 and the SRA’s evidence-integrity standards.
Read the allegation, verified page references and direct questions → · Read the SRA evidence question →
BH68 → court exhibit → regulatory report
The email allegation reached the regulator.
The October report expressly raised the disputed utility chain. Laurence Price confirmed receipt of files on 23 October 2025. The SRA’s 30 October decision recognised the allegation but declined investigation, giving a court-first reason. The expanded reporting now compares the actual submission, decision and follow-up promise.
Follow the SRA response trail → · Read the seven handling questions →
Response record expanded · 18 September 2026
Seldons acknowledged the notice. Its earlier denial is also recorded.
The 28 October 2025 letter acknowledges the 27 October correspondence and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. Cornwell’s 24 October email had expressly rejected the tampering allegations and supplied further copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally. The questions now ask what content was compared and what review followed—not whether any reply existed.
The wider overview also records the SRA’s closed assessment and the July 2026 order determining boundaries and rights of way in Mr Mayo’s favour. The family challenges the treatment of its evidence. Read those later outcomes and the continuing questions →
Receipt and response sources → · Seldons’ wider question pack →
Additional documents reviewed · 13 September 2026
The allegation was put in writing. What followed?
- 25–26 October 2025 — Annex J-1: the notice addressed to Luke Cornwell demands authentic underlying BH68 documents and alleges insertion of the pole into fabricated correspondence. Its cover and letter carry different dates, both retained here. [P, pp. 1–3]
- 26 October 2025 — Annex J-2: Mr J challenges the email’s alleged alteration, the late listing of 1963/1975 agreements and a position attributed to the 24 October correspondence that their benefit had transferred. The question is what original instruments and earlier statement-of-truth wording supported that position. [O, pp. 2–4]
- 27 October 2025 — notice to the solicitor and firm: the email addresses Luke Cornwell and Seldons, lists Annex E, J-1 and J-2, and demands preservation of originals and metadata. It asks for acknowledgement and firm-wide preservation within 24 hours. [N, pp. 1–2]
- 29 October 2025 — request addressed to CPS mailboxes: the family seeks criminal assessment and coordination with the SRA, specifically alleging insertion of BH68 and use of the material in proceedings. This copy records the outgoing request, not an authority’s decision to investigate. [Q, pp. 1–3]
The significance is notice and opportunity to check. The separately reviewed 28 October 2025 letter acknowledges the previous day’s correspondence and attachments and reserves Seldons’ position. Cornwell’s 24 October email had expressly denied tampering and described further copies printed and delivered personally by Mr Mayo. What originals were preserved? Was Ms Skea asked to authenticate the exchange? Who compared the content of the versions, and where is the written result? [T, response trail]
Editing allegation · Primary record and recollection updated 18 September 2026
Filed first. Editing explained only after challenge?
Mr J alleges that Luke Cornwell of Seldons Solicitors put the disputed emails attributed to Amelia Skea and Mr Mayo before the court in place of the executed wayleave agreement the family was requesting. He says an explanation about editing emerged only after the family challenged the self-forwarded copy.
The October 2025 submissions · Exact extracts
The editing allegation was already in the written submissions.
The defendant’s submissions prepared for the 14 October 2025 hearing expressly alleged editing of the email chain and challenged a later redaction explanation. Mr J says these documents were filed with the court under statements of truth. The extracts below reproduce the submissions’ words, not Cornwell’s original reply or a court finding.
The Claimant’s solicitor, Mr Luke Cornwell of Seldons LLP, has admitted in writing to self-forwarding and editing a National Grid email chain that he later filed under a statement of truth.
The explanation later offered — that this was “redaction” — was retrospective and untenable.
The rebuttal likewise alleges that Mr Cornwell “has now admitted in writing to editing and re-forwarding email correspondence after the fact”. Its page 5 refers to an admission within his Reply; page 18 disputes the redaction explanation. [K, pp. 5, 17–18]
The question is precise: what does the original Reply say, which version does it describe, and where can the changes and their disclosure be checked?
The court material is now identified: paragraph 42 of the second amended claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25. The statement of truth, signature and six email pages have been reviewed. Read the precise references and written-notice questions.
The sequence Mr J reports
- The submission: Mr J says the emails were presented as authentic evidence in material supported by a statement of truth. He says the copy did not show what had been removed or disclose that it had been edited.
- The challenge: Mr J says Miss E disputed the emails’ authenticity and the rights they appeared to imply, contrasting them with her own executed agreement. The family challenged why the copy showed Mr Cornwell forwarding the exchange to himself.
- The later explanation: Mr J reports that Mr Cornwell then acknowledged self-forwarding and editing, citing privileged client material. He now recalls an oral explanation before Judge Paul Mitchell, possibly at a strike-out hearing, and says he objected. The hearing and date are not yet confirmed. Mr J says this explanation came after the submission and only after that challenge, rather than when the material was first presented.
Mr J says the corresponding executed agreement remains unproduced despite requests to multiple parties for more than a year. Authentication and wayleave-record requests appear in the February–March 2025 correspondence; the May 2026 letter before action reports follow-ups extending beyond a year. [G, pp. 3–5] [H, pp. 1–3]
Why the sequence matters: the concern is whether a changed copy was presented without disclosing the changes—and whether the version relied upon faithfully represented the original. An explanation about protecting client information should identify the nature and extent of the changes, when notice was given and how the original can be checked without exposing genuinely protected information.
What was changed? Where is the written notice? When was the explanation first given? What checks supported paragraph 42, and can the preserved original be compared with MJM2? Read the version-and-redaction questions and the question about the court filing.
The procedural question: notice and preservation
The reviewed allocation order places this claim on the multi-track. Practice Direction 31B, paragraph 35, addresses notice and preservation when altered electronic copies are supplied; any case-specific direction must also be identified. Read PD 31B, paragraphs 3 and 35 ↗
CPR 31.19(3)–(4) requires a claim to withhold inspection of all or part of a document to be stated in writing with its grounds. Whether these requirements were breached here depends on the applicable procedure, orders, notices and actual versions—not simply on the fact that a copy was forwarded. Read CPR 31.19 ↗
The later plan
Which title did “your title” mean?
On 13 March 2025, Nick Shackson confirmed he could open Miss E’s attachments and said he would review them and contact Bodmin records. That records a promised check, not its completed result. His 28 April 2025 email subsequently described the attached plan as showing apparatus “on your title”. [B, p. 8] [C, pp. 1–2]
28 April 2025: “on your title”
10 February 2026: “not any particular title”
The later explanation described a general-area map. The words call for a specific answer: which title and apparatus did the first description concern, and what checked records supported it? Explain how the two descriptions fit together. [B, pp. 2–5]
The displayed October 2025 forwarding chain links Mr Mayo’s copy to Luke Cornwell at Seldons. Jack Webb’s official 3PB profile separately identifies his representation of Mr Mayo in this case. His documented role is explained in the supporting professional profile; that connection is not a separate allegation against him.
The correspondence trail
Requests. A referral. A promise. Where are the records?
- 26 February–10 March 2025: Miss E sought authentication of the April exchange. A 7 March follow-up copied Amelia Skea. On 10 March, Records Assistant Angela Caddy said the enquiry had been referred to Estates Specialist Nigel Merrifield. That is a recorded referral, not an authentication answer. Nothing here identifies Nigel as the “Tom” in the later office account. [G, pp. 1–5]
- October 2025 submissions: the rebuttal and oral-argument summary allege a written admission of editing and challenge a retrospective redaction explanation. Mr J says they were filed with the court. These are the family’s submissions, not an independent answer to their allegations. [K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18] [L, pp. 2, 5, 26]
- 2–24 February 2026: Nick Shackson confirmed sending the April plan, authenticated payment advice and stated that existing wayleaves transferred to Mr Mayo. On 10 February he explained the map’s general-area purpose and said no registered chartered-surveyor survey work produced it. Miss E’s 13 February authorship and specific-apparatus questions were followed up on 24 February. No direct answers to those narrower points appear in the reviewed copies. [B, pp. 1–7]
- 24–26 April 2026: Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP said he was instructed that previous information and document requests had been dealt with. He asked the family to specify further documents, the proposed claim and remedy. Mr J disputed the characterisation and initially withheld a substantive response pending confirmation of authority. [J, pp. 2–3]
- 5–7 May 2026: Nick confirmed Geldards’ instruction. Mr J later accepted its authority. On 7 May, Mr Hacking acknowledged receiving the forwarded email to Ms Skea with its letter before action, directed further correspondence through him and said he was reviewing recent emails and letters addressed to Mr Shackson, with a substantive response to follow. He also stated NGED’s position that the employees acted in the course of employment and any claim would be against NGED. These are genuine responses and a stated legal position—not authentication of the disputed emails or a finding about personal liability. [E, p. 3] [I, p. 1] [J, pp. 1–2]
The unresolved point: the supplied replies do not identify the native exchange, the original attachments or the particular agreement establishing the claimed BH68 position. No subsequent substantive reply appears in these copies. Where is the promised substantive response?
The family’s account
The allegation is deliberate misrepresentation.
Mr J, speaking for himself and Miss E, alleges that the plan was deliberately created and presented to imply rights not demonstrated by the agreement record, and that parts of the linked email material were fabricated. He describes the alleged purpose as fraudulent, intended to create ambiguity over the family’s boundary and contractual rights.
The family’s letters attribute to an estate specialist called Tom an office statement that no current or historic BH68 agreement existed in Mr Mayo’s name. They describe only defunct historic multi-pole agreements, a predecessor agreement for Miss E’s property and her current agreement. Geldards’ correspondence itself refers to office visits on 13 April 2026 and a home visit the next day; it does not confirm the words attributed to Tom. The office recording and the title and subdivision history are needed to test this account. Historic agreement copies have since been supplied separately; their current application remains a question to examine. [D, pp. 1–3] [H, pp. 1–3] [J, p. 3]
The public professional match is Tom Watson, Estates and Wayleaves Specialist, National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc, Bodmin, Cornwall. National Grid’s directory and dated public correspondence support that professional identification. The family’s letter itself names only “Tom”; his profile separates those professional sources from the reported meeting.
Mr J says the continuing absence of the requested originals and agreement deepens his concern that the email record was altered after sending or deliberately created to mislead. He wants the people who supplied and relied upon these documents to explain their provenance and produce the records against which they can be checked.
Evidence, inference, limits
What follows from the record?
- A payment statement needs its supporting record. It is reasonable to ask whether an administrative update was treated as evidence of wider rights. Neither £25 annually nor a £2,000 contractual provision answers that scope question on its own.
- A claimed transfer needs an identifiable basis. PCC’s January 2024 letter described previous-owner agreements for Miss E’s property as expired; Nick’s later reply refers to transfers to Mr Mayo. Produce the relevant instruments and explain their continued application, including the land and poles covered. [A, p. 1]
- A promise to answer creates a point of accountability. What happened to the promised response? Who is responsible for completing it? If earlier requests were answered, supply those answers. The reported delay leaves the central verification work unfinished.
- A disputed printout calls for the original. Compare the retained exchange, the self-forwarded version and the attachments. Identify and explain every difference. That comparison is the direct way to test the allegation.
Why these questions remain public
Miss E and Mr J make the fraud allegation and report that the substantive answers remain outstanding. Their account is presented alongside the agreement, disputed correspondence, formal requests and October 2025 submissions examined in this report. The allegation and the document gaps are specific; the answer must address them.
An acknowledgement does not authenticate an email. A transfer assertion does not identify the agreement behind it. We ask the named parties to produce the originals, identify the relevant agreement and explain the versions put before the court. The recorded replies are set out above. Substantive answers and corrections will be placed alongside the questions they address.
The absence of an answer does not make the question disappear.
The records that would settle the questions.
The questions below ask for identifiable material: the original email exchange and attachments; the agreement, plan and basis of any transfer; the payment-record changes and checks behind them; and the court filing explaining what was relied upon. They distinguish recorded requests from new editorial follow-ups.
People and organisations in this record
Document review · 12–13 September 2026
The documents we have reviewed.
The Unanswered Record has reviewed the supplied PDF copies of the 6 May 2026 letter before action addressed to Nick Shackson (D, six pages) and the 7 May 2026 letter before action addressed to Amelia Skea (H, four pages).
The review covers the executed agreement and signed plan, April 2025 plan and email, disputed April 2024 exchange, verification requests, Geldards’ replies and October 2025 submissions. On 13 September we reviewed five additional documents: the expanded Annex E, Annexes J-1/J-2, the notice to Cornwell and Seldons and the CPS referral request. The attributed exchange was re-examined. All 17 distinct documents (129 pages) are identified below.
“Reviewed” means that we have examined the supplied copy and its contents. It does not mean that the original has been authenticated or that every assertion within it has been independently verified.
References use PDF page numbers in the supplied copies. These links open source notes; the original PDFs are not part of this draft.
- A · The signed wayleave agreement
- B · The questions and the replies
- C · The April 2025 plan and email
- D · The 6 May 2026 letter before action addressed to Nick Shackson
- E · The covering email and representation reply
- F · The April 2024 correspondence attributed to Amelia Skea and Mr Mayo
- G · The verification requests and the March 2025 referral
- H · The 7 May 2026 letter before action addressed to Amelia Skea
- I · The email transmitting the Skea letter and supporting documents
- J · Geldards’ April and May 2026 replies
- K · October 2025: the defendant’s rebuttal to the claimant’s reply
- L · October 2025: the summary of oral argument for the strike-out hearing
- M · Annex E: the particularised allegation of email insertion and evidential manipulation
- N · 27 October 2025: notice to Luke Cornwell and Seldons, with a demand to preserve originals
- O · 26 October 2025: Annex J-2 challenges the email, disclosure history and claimed transfer
- P · 25–26 October 2025: Annex J-1 demands the underlying wayleave documents
- Q · 29 October 2025: the family’s referral request addressed to the CPS
The reporting record
What changed in this article.
- Pleading and exhibit identified
The verified pleading. The exhibit. The written-notice question.
The BH68 article now links the precise pleading and email-exhibit pages, the family’s reported objection in court and the updated redaction-rule questions for Cornwell, Seldons and the SRA.
Read the court-record update - Material response context added
Seldons’ receipt, denial and the later outcomes
The article now records the 28 October acknowledgement, the 24 October denial and replacement-copy explanation, and links to the SRA decision and July 2026 court order.
Read the response update - Executive-review questions prepared
National Grid’s standards. Six questions for its Chief Executive.
A new question pack for Zoë Yujnovich asks which policies applied, who will examine the BH68 records, where the substantive answers are and when a written outcome will follow. Official policy sources and the recorded reply trail are linked. These executive questions have not yet been sent.
Read the executive-review questions - Contributor account added
10 March hearing. 17 March claimed service.
Mr J reports a sworn claim that the N260 was sent on 17 March. The family disputes that account and alleges deliberate withholding and an illegitimate costs order. The questions ask for the statement, service evidence and recorded basis of the assessment.
Read the dated account and questions - Contributor account added
BH68 and the costs hearing: the connection described by Mr J
Mr J reports that the attributed wayleave email was relied on at the same hearing where the costs order was made. The article now connects that account to Judge Paul Mitchell’s costs questions and the wider case record.
Read the hearing connection - Source notes added
Five source notes added to the formal-notice trail
The October notices and referral request are now explained alongside Annex E and J-1/J-2. The reporting connects the family’s formal allegations, the preservation requests and the documents sought.
Follow the formal notices - Reporting updated
BH67, BH68 and the exact email wording
The existing attributed exchange has been re-examined. The article distinguishes the incoming message naming both poles from the reply’s “your wayleave” wording and sets out the family’s specific insertion allegation.
Read the email comparison - Questions updated
The plan, agreement and email questions connected
The questions now connect Mr J’s account of late introduction and court reliance on the plan with the requested agreement and disputed email. Readers can follow each question to its source and response record.
Read the connected questions
Substantive additions and corrections will be recorded here. The full case can be followed through Latest developments.
The next chapter
The next test is the record.
Authenticate the email. Identify the agreement. Explain the costs. The next question is how the disputed material travelled through this case: who relied on which version, for what purpose, and what happened when it was challenged.
This is one part of a case extending over more than two years. Further reporting will trace the connections as additional documents, accounts and responses are received and examined. Each chapter will show what changes the account, what answers a question, and what remains unresolved.
The questions remain open. So does the opportunity to answer them.
Executive accountability · Added 18 September 2026
National Grid’s standards.
Who will account for this record?
The question for Zoë Yujnovich, Chief Executive of National Grid plc: will you commission a review that answers the documentary questions—not merely records that replies were sent?
Miss E’s signed agreement is with National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc. The family challenges the company’s handling of the attributed email, the plan and the instruments said to support Mr Mayo’s position. These questions ask the group’s current Chief Executive to secure an accountable review of that handling.
The wider dispute spans more than two years, according to the family. The reviewed authentication request is dated 26 February 2025; Ms Skea is visibly copied on 7 March 2025. A referral followed on 10 March. Later replies from Mark Hacking of Geldards LLP include a 7 May 2026 promise of a substantive response concerning Mr Shackson. Mr J reports that the core authentication and agreement questions remain unresolved. A reply exists. The question is whether the answer does.
National Grid publishes ethics and service standards. We ask which applied to these events, whether the handling met them and what will be done about any failure. NGED’s complaints procedure treats wayleave disputes as legal or contractual matters; the review must identify the appropriate route for the associated record-integrity and conduct concerns. Read the official policies and their scope.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Pole BH68
The questions requiring a direct answer
These questions arise from the supplied documents. The response notes describe that bundle, not all possible correspondence or the position today.
- Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
Did you personally draw the plan sent to Mr Mayo on 28 April 2025? If not, who prepared it?
Why this matters Traceability
A plan should be traceable to its author and source material. That allows its reliability and limitations to be checked. Confirming who sent it does not establish who prepared it: integrity requires that distinction to remain clear.
Miss E asked about personal authorship on 13 February 2026. The earlier reply confirms sending the plan, which is a different point. No direct answer to the later authorship question appears in the supplied bundle.
Sources: B, pp. 2–3BH68-01 · No direct answer in supplied record · View question record ↗
- Nick Shackson · Estates Specialist · National Grid
Which apparatus and which title did “the apparatus on your title” refer to? What supported that wording, and how does it relate to your later description, “not any particular title”? Did you carry out the Bodmin records check you proposed on 13 March 2025 before sending the April plan? If so, what did it establish? Was this intended as the plan accompanying a particular wayleave agreement? What could it establish about BH68, and what could it not establish? Identify any agreement to which it was attached.
Why this matters Precision
A general apparatus map and a statement about a particular title do not necessarily establish the same thing. Integrity requires the wording to match what the underlying records can support, so those relying on it understand its limits.
The 13 February request asked which apparatus the phrase meant. The 24 February follow-up says this remained unanswered. The February reply explains that the map displayed a general area; the available copies contain no direct answer identifying the apparatus intended by the earlier wording.
Sources: C, p. 2 · B, pp. 1–5, 8 · D, pp. 4–5BH68-02 · No direct answer in supplied record · View question record ↗
- National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · via Geldards LLP, the instructed firm, and Mark Hacking, its named contact
What agreement or other basis supports the claimed BH68 wayleave rights connected with Mr Mayo? Produce the agreement, its date, parties and plan. Identify the land and apparatus covered. If an older agreement is relied upon, what establishes its continued application after any ownership change or subdivision, and how does it relate to Miss E’s signed 2024 agreement?
Why this matters Verifiability
Miss E’s signed agreement provides a specific record against which the claimed BH68 rights can be compared. A transfer assertion should identify the relevant agreement or other basis, the land and apparatus, and why an older arrangement is said still to apply. Without those records, the family cannot test the competing claim. Integrity requires that comparison to be possible.
Mr Shackson’s 2 February reply states that existing wayleaves transferred. The supplied replies do not identify the individual agreements or establish whether one covers BH68. The later 5 May reply confirms instruction of Geldards LLP and separately names Mark Hacking as a contact, not as the author of the original statement.
Sources: A, pp. 1, 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · D, pp. 3–5 · E, p. 3 · J, pp. 1–3BH68-03 · Clarification not found in supplied record · View question record ↗
- Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · concerning Mr Mayo’s representation described in the correspondence · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom
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 Mr 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.
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. A map’s appearance cannot supply the missing terms, parties or scope of an agreement.
The issue is why this plan was introduced and what evidential basis supported its reported use—not simply whether it was used. Mr J says it was relied upon, was not suitable as a wayleave-agreement plan, and did not supply the missing executed agreement. The correspondence records Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation. The reported court use and timing are Mr J’s account; this question seeks the precise filing, justification and underlying agreement.
Sources: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5 - Amelia Skea · Wayleave Services, Bodmin Office · National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc
Did you send the 15 April 2024 message saying “Your wayleave will be paid annually in advance in September” in response to the displayed 9 April request naming BH67 and BH68? Was BH68 in the email National Grid actually received? Produce the retained request, reply, full headers and attachments. For each pole, identify the agreement or other instrument behind “your wayleave” and the record linked to reference 2624773. If any displayed wording is not what you received or sent, identify it, when you became aware of it and what correction or notification followed. Miss E’s verification requests began in February 2025: why do the supplied replies still contain no authentication answer? If you have answered, identify the dated reply. If you cannot verify the exchange, explain what prevents you, who is checking it and when an answer will be provided.
Why this matters Authenticity
The reply can be read as confirming the request about two named poles. If the request was altered, or the reply concerned different records, the apparent confirmation could convey a materially different meaning. Authenticating both sides of the exchange and identifying the instrument for each pole tests that connection directly.
Mr J reports that neither a BH68 nor a BH67 agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family. On 13 September 2026 he alleges possible knowing involvement by Ms Skea in misleading wording or failure to correct wording she knows was falsely attributed to her. The retained messages and agreement records are sought to test that allegation. The supplied referral and solicitor correspondence do not provide an authentication finding.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 2–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20BH68-05 · Authentication not found in supplied record · View question record ↗
- National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · concerning the payment-record update attributed to Amelia Skea · South West Wayleave Records, Bodmin
Which agreement or other instrument did “your wayleave” refer to, for BH67 and for BH68? Identify the land, apparatus and recipient linked to reference 2624773. What payment records were updated, by whom and on what documents? Produce the archived plan and completion letter referred to in the April 2024 request and explain whether the stated £25 annual amount concerned one pole, both poles or different apparatus. How does that position relate to Miss E’s June 2024 BH68 agreement, its signed plan, 14-year term and one-off £2,000 payment provision?
Why this matters Documentary basis
An assertion that payment records were changed should be traceable to the documents and apparatus it concerns. Integrity requires explaining whether the records describe the same pole and rights, rather than treating an administrative payment entry as proof of an agreement or of the disputed boundary.
The April 2024 printout predates the June agreement. Identify exactly what was updated, the documents supporting the change and how the later agreement relates to it. The supplied replies leave that comparison unresolved.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 3–5 · H, pp. 2–3 · I, p. 1 · J, p. 1BH68-06 · Supporting update records not supplied · View question record ↗
- Mark Hacking / Geldards LLP · for National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Nottingham office
On 7 May 2026 you promised a substantive response to the recent Shackson correspondence. Where is that response? Separately, which dated answer resolves the Skea email-authentication and BH68 agreement questions? Produce the answers and supporting records. If these points remain unanswered, why, what prevents an answer, and when will you provide one?
Why this matters Answerability
A promise of a substantive response gives the family a concrete commitment against which to ask what happened next. An acknowledgement leaves the underlying verification work unfinished. Accountability requires the promised answer, its supporting records or an explanation of what prevents it.
The correspondence contains real responses, but those pages do not identify an answer authenticating the disputed exchange or producing the particular BH68 supporting records. This is a proposed request for that identification, not a claim that Geldards has ignored this newly worded question.
Sources: G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3 - Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom
The 31 January 2025 header names you as both sender and recipient: why did you self-forward the exchange attributed to Amelia Skea and Mr Mayo? The family’s Annex E specifically alleges insertion of BH68 into correspondence originally about BH67. Was the phrase “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” present in the message received from your source? Produce that message and the native exchange, including attachments, and compare them with the self-forwarded and court-filed versions. Identify every addition, removal or change, who made it and when. If you removed material on privilege grounds, identify the dated written notice or disclosure-list entry under CPR 31.19, its recipients and the grounds for withholding. Where is the unaltered original preserved under PD 31B paragraph 35? If no notice exists, explain why and identify any relevant direction. Paragraph 42 of the second amended claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25: what checks supported that verified assertion? Identify the first redaction explanation and any hearing record addressing Mr J’s reported objection. Mr J says the emails were relied upon while the requested agreement and Ms Skea’s authentication remained outstanding: what checks supported that reliance, and which agreement supported the claimed BH68 rights? Provide the dated explanation and version comparison with appropriate protection for genuinely confidential information.
Why this matters Document provenance
The concern is not self-forwarding in isolation. It is whether a disputed copy carried the weight of an agreement that the family says was never produced, without a checkable confirmation from the attributed sender. The integrity test connects provenance, meaning and reliance: which words were actually sent, what changed, what verified them and what justified the use made of them in court?
Mr J’s concern is cumulative: no executed BH68 agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family, the attributed sender has not provided the authentication they seek, and the court copy was self-forwarded with editing explained only after challenge, according to his account. He alleges these connected gaps raise serious doubts about the email’s authenticity and its use as evidence. This question asks Mr Cornwell to address that connection directly: identify the checks, produce the originals and agreement, and account for each change and its disclosure.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 3–5 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, recorded 24 October replies and T7: paragraph 42, MJM2 and redaction rules - National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) plc · Chief Executive’s Office / executive review
Is this handling of a wayleave-holder’s verification requests consistent with National Grid’s standards? Identify who took responsibility after the February and March 2025 requests, the referral and the April 2026 office visits. Who checked the disputed emails and agreement records, what did they conclude, and where is the written outcome? Will a senior officer review BH68-03, BH68-05 and BH68-06, explain any unresolved delay and give a date for a document-supported response?
Why this matters Corporate responsibility
Responsibility should remain traceable when a wayleave-holder’s concern passes between departments and external solicitors. Integrity requires a checkable outcome: who investigated, which records they examined and what answer the company stands behind.
Identify a responsible senior officer, the checks performed, their written outcome and the route to completing any unresolved work. Mr J reports that the substantive verification answers remain outstanding; this register does not mark the new executive question as overdue.
Sources: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–3 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 - Seldons LLP / Seldons Solicitors · managing partner or professional-standards partner · Bideford
Seldons’ letter of 28 October 2025 acknowledges the 27 October correspondence and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. What action followed that notice? Who was responsible, which records were preserved and where is the substantive review outcome? Cornwell had rejected the tampering allegations on 24 October and supplied copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally: what comparison established that their content matched the originals? Will a partner identify the received, self-forwarded and court-filed versions, each change, the written withholding notice and grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35? Who checked the version relied on in paragraph 42 of the amended claim? Identify the first redaction explanation and any response to the reported objection in court. Was verification sought directly from Amelia Skea or National Grid? Identify the supporting record and any correction required.
Why this matters Evidence stewardship
A firm-level answer should explain how evidence bearing its solicitor’s name was handled and checked. The integrity test is whether the disclosed copy preserved the original meaning and made its changes traceable, including the action taken if a problem is found.
The firm is asked for its own position, the supervision record, a protected version comparison and any correction needed. The proposed review does not assume that a change necessarily altered the substantive meaning.
Sources: F, pp. 1–2 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, notice, acknowledgement, earlier denial and T7: primary court record - Mark John Mayo · response may be provided through his representative
Which agreement or other instrument do you rely on for rights concerning BH68? Identify its date, parties, plan, apparatus and the land to which it applies. If you rely on an older agreement rather than one in your name, identify the record establishing its continued application to your land. Explain how that position relates to Miss E’s signed June 2024 agreement. If the family has misstated your position, provide the precise correction and supporting document. Did your 9 April 2024 email contain the words “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” as shown in the disputed copy? Provide your sent message, its attachments and the reply you received, and identify the agreement or other instrument relating to each pole.
Why this matters A checkable claim
A claim about particular land and apparatus should identify the instrument and reasoning that support it. Naming the agreement and its scope lets readers compare competing accounts against documents rather than implications.
Identify the instrument, its scope and the basis on which it is said to apply. The question is not whether any historic documents exist, but which document supports the particular BH68 position now relied upon.
Sources: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 5–7 · C, p. 2 · D, pp. 3–5 · F, pp. 1–2 · M, pp. 19–20 - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Which employee-conduct, customer-communication, wayleave-record, complaint and document-integrity policies applied to the identified BH68 events during 2024–2026? Provide the policy titles, effective dates and relevant provisions, identifying the responsible National Grid legal entity. Which requirements applied to external solicitors, and through what instruction or contractual arrangement? If a document cannot be shared in full, provide the applicable provisions and explain the restriction.
Why this matters Standards that can be tested
A company’s public commitments should lead to identifiable standards against which particular conduct can be reviewed—not a general assurance that leaves the substance unchecked.
Identify the actual standard, version and responsible entity before assessing compliance. Website terms of use are not a substitute for the rules governing staff and case handling.
Sources: S, published standards and scope · A, pp. 4–6 · G, pp. 1–5 · J, pp. 1–3 - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Will you appoint a reviewer not previously involved in the disputed handling, with authority to obtain the relevant records and require corrections? Name the responsible office, provide a case reference and a secure route for the indexed correspondence and letters before action. Confirm preservation of original emails, headers, attachments, plans and version histories. Which route will examine authenticity and staff conduct if the wayleave-rights dispute is being handled through legal proceedings?
Why this matters Accountable review
A concern passed between staff, departments and solicitors needs an identifiable owner able to reach the underlying records and give a reasoned outcome.
Confirm a responsible reviewer, remit, secure delivery channel and preservation arrangements. The proposed internal review is not represented as an externally independent inquiry.
Sources: S, ethics and wayleave-complaint scope · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Will the review authenticate the complete BH67/BH68 exchange attributed to Amelia Skea against National Grid’s originals, including headers and attachments, and explain any difference from the self-forwarded copy? Identify the instrument, parties, land and apparatus supporting “your wayleave” for each pole, and reconcile that position with Miss E’s signed June 2024 BH68 agreement. What record supported the April 2025 plan’s “on your title” wording, given Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation?
Why this matters Traceable evidence
The agreement, email and plan must be connected by records that can be checked. An executive assurance cannot replace authentication of the very material in dispute.
Provide a source-backed comparison: authentic company message, underlying instrument, relevant pole and land, and the purpose and limits of the plan. Identify any correction rather than relying on the disputed wording to verify itself.
Sources: A, pp. 4–6 · B, pp. 2–8 · C, p. 2 · F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 1–5 · S, record-integrity standards - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Which substantive authentication and agreement issues raised in the documented February–March 2025 correspondence remain unresolved, and why? For each point, identify the request, responsible person, checks made and dated answer with its supporting document. Account for the 10 March referral, the May 2026 letters before action and the 7 May promise of a substantive response concerning Mr Shackson. If the company considers the questions answered, show exactly where—not merely that correspondence took place.
Why this matters An answer is more than an acknowledgement
The material issue is whether a person can verify the record affecting their rights. A referral, acknowledgement or change of correspondent does not itself identify the agreement or authenticate an email.
Produce a question-by-question response schedule and explain any unresolved delay. The documented authentication request dates from 26 February 2025, with Ms Skea visibly copied on 7 March; this is not described as two years without any reply.
Sources: G, pp. 1–5 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, customer-service and complaints standards - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Who held responsibility for checking Amelia Skea’s and Nick Shackson’s handling of the disputed records and the ensuing requests? Identify the non-privileged scope of Geldards LLP’s role, who retained complaint ownership after referral to the firm, and what process ensured the factual questions were investigated and answered. If information is withheld, identify the category and reason, and what non-privileged factual outcome can still be provided.
Why this matters Responsibility survives referral
Use of external advisers should leave the company able to explain who owns a concern and which factual checks underpin its response.
Identify responsibility, the review undertaken and the factual position the company stands behind. Do not treat a referral to legal representatives as a substitute for identifying how the record-integrity concern is addressed.
Sources: D, pp. 1–5 · E, p. 3 · G, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, policy applicability - Zoë Yujnovich · Chief Executive, National Grid plc · for referral to the responsible NGED South West executive
Will you provide a dated written outcome against each question, setting out the records examined, applicable standards and findings, and identifying any corrections required? Explain the relevant agreement terms, notice provisions, contractual protections and review or escalation routes for Miss E. Give a realistic completion date and arrangements for progress updates. Where a point cannot be resolved, identify the missing record and the steps being taken to obtain it.
Why this matters A checkable conclusion
A review has value when the affected person can understand what was checked, what was concluded and what will change. The result should answer the material questions, not simply close the correspondence.
The response sought is a dated outcome that can be compared with the source material, with an explanation of unresolved points and any action required. A response deadline will be recorded only after a request is actually sent.
Sources: A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 1–5 · H, pp. 1–3 · J, pp. 1–3 · S, executive and company standards
A place for the answer
Have something to add?
National Grid, Mr Shackson, Ms Skea, 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
Stay with the story
Follow the investigation
as the record develops.
This chapter does not close the case. 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. Following does not guarantee that every post appears in your feed.