T1 · Which Annex E?
Eight standalone filename matches contain four distinct PDF files by hash, but three substantive text versions. The two six-page exports have identical text and rendered page content. An earlier two-page version also appears as D5 in the SRA exhibit bundles.
- 13 October 2025: two-page embedded version, physical pages 58–59 / printed 41–42 in the examined SRA hearing bundle.
- Updated 25 October 2025: two pages, expanding the forestry-report and email allegations.
- Updated 29 October 2025: six pages, adding conveyancing allegations and further references.
- Updated 6 February 2026: 24 pages, adding costs, joinder, expert-instruction and funding arguments. Cover and signed final page confirm the update date. The PDF’s 6 March export date is not a new substantive revision date.
The latest version’s page map: costs 4–6; joinder 6–10; boundary 10–11; forestry and National Grid 11–13; expert instructions 13–17; funding 17–19; email summary and conveyancing 19–22; referrals and closing 22–24. It refers to external exhibits and accounting material rather than reproducing them. Its legal propositions are the authors’ submissions, not judicial rulings.
T2 · 27 October notice; 28 October acknowledgement
The sent email “Claim L00BP152 — Formal Referral to CPS & SRA re Falsified Documents (Cornwell / Seldons LLP)” was opened in the account holder’s Outlook. It addresses Cornwell and the firm mailbox and visibly lists three attachments: Annex E (137 KB), J-1 (153 KB) and J-2 (184 KB). The Annex E preview contains two pages. This corroborates the earlier outgoing Source N; the later 24-page text must not be attributed to this sending.
The 28 October 2025 email from Sandra Bubyer, concerning case L00BP152, attaches a one-page letter addressed to Miss E and Mr J (141 KB), signed Seldons LLP. The letter was visually read in Outlook. It acknowledges correspondence with attachments sent “15.08 on 27 October 2025” and reserves the firm’s position entirely regarding the content. It contains no substantive account of a review or preservation steps.
The mail display and exported copies use different clock times. The article uses the calendar date and quotes the letter’s time as written; it does not silently equate local-display times. The acknowledgement is not proof of receipt of every document in a later CPS bundle.
T3 · Two material replies dated 24 October 2025
The saved two-page email copy with displayed time 20:28, from Luke Cornwell–Seldons, expressly rejects the allegations of electronic tampering. It says further copies were printed by the client and delivered in person and argues that the concern about the electronic forwarding method no longer applies. It lists attachments attributed to Amelia Skea and Adriel Miller and reserves a wasted-costs application. The covering email has been read; that alone does not authenticate each attached message.
The separate two-page email with displayed time 22:05 supplies a revised disclosure schedule, says it includes electronic copies of the original 1963 and 1975 agreements, and maintains the client’s position that their benefit transferred to him, referring to item 5. This is a stated position, not an admission of fabrication.
The files’ accusatory filenames are not adopted as evidence. The relevant comparison is the actual original, derivative copies, attachments and underlying instrument.
T4 · SRA decision, not an open investigation
The two-page decision dated 30 October 2025, reference RGC-000162355, concerns Seldons LLP and is signed by Laurence Price. It records an initial report received on 24 June 2025. It assesses the duty owed to a third party, regards the falsification allegations as potentially serious, but says the court should consider them first. It declines investigation and says judicial criticism or positive findings could lead to reconsideration. The covering letter says the file is closed.
The family’s 4 November objection to that decision is not evidence of reopening. Nor is the decision an affirmative finding that the disputed emails were authentic. No later reopening decision was located in this review. The February annex’s assertion that the report “remains active” is not repeated as an established status.
The decision and covering letter carry confidentiality markings. This note reports the relevant outcome; it does not publish those private files, signatures or contact details. Read the regulatory questions
T8 · What was submitted, received and challenged?
The relevant correspondence was reviewed in the account holder’s Outlook. The dated documents are: Price’s two-page request of 15 October 2025; the 21–23 October upload and receipt exchange; his two-page decision and covering letter of 30 October; Mr J’s objections of 30 October and 4 November; and the Contact Centre’s acknowledgment of 8 November.
The local SRA submission folder contains the four categories listed in the sending emails: a four-page report form signed 21 October; a 25-page combined form and substantive report dated 20 October and signed 21 October; a separate exhibit index; and exhibit bundles. The substantive report is the family’s submission to the SRA—not an SRA-authored investigation.
A representative 103-page exhibit bundle was examined. Other 101/103-page versions and a revised index exist. Price’s acknowledgment confirms receipt of files but does not identify every filename or version. The local copies cannot alone establish the exact contents of the upload. The February 2026 Annex E expansion is later material and is not presented as something Price received before the October decision.
- 24 June 2025 · Initial complaint. Mr J sent a complaint about Seldons; the Contact Centre acknowledged forwarding it to the Report Team.
- 15 October · Information requested. Laurence Price asked for specific misleading statements, supporting evidence, the proceedings’ status and any judicial criticism.
- 21 October · Expanded evidence offered. The outgoing email listed a report form, substantive report, index and exhibits. Native files, metadata and witness statements were offered. After a WeTransfer security restriction, Price provided a Mimecast route.
- 23 October · Receipt confirmed. Price wrote:
I confirm receipt of the files you have sent.
- 30 October · File closed. The SRA declined investigation. Mr J challenged the decision in reply.
- 4–8 November · Challenge and promised follow-up. Mr J sent a further seven-page challenge on 4 November. On 8 November Anthony Roberts at the Contact Centre said Price or the Report Team would respond in due course.
No later substantive reply or reopening was found in searches by case reference, Price’s sending address, the escalation subject and SRA domain. This describes the correspondence searched, not every possible account, reference or postal communication.
T9 · Five strands. What did the decision address?
Page references are physical PDF pages in the local 25-page report and representative 103-page exhibit bundle. Each entry distinguishes the family’s allegation, the reviewed copies and the written decision.
Report pp. 7–9, 11–14; exhibits pp. 35–43
Utility emails and BH68
Allegation: The family alleges that the utility-email chain was altered and presented without the editing being disclosed, to support Mr Mayo’s asserted rights over BH68.
Reviewed material: The copies show Cornwell-to-Cornwell forwarding headers, the reproduced BH67/BH68 wording and the family’s signed wayleave and plan. They make the provenance question identifiable. The alleged insertion requires comparison with the original messages. The Openreach signature expressly identifies Paralaw as acting on its behalf; contractor involvement alone is not evidence of fabrication.
The decision: The decision expressly recognises the self-forwarding/pole allegation and calls falsification potentially serious. It records no native-message comparison or finding about the alleged insertion.
Report pp. 9–11; exhibits pp. 30–34
Forestry correspondence and court use
Allegation: The family alleges that forestry correspondence was obtained and used to misrepresent compliance with an access order.
Reviewed material: The reproduced exchanges show Mr Mayo requesting particular statements and referring to their possible use with his solicitor and the judge. They also include Bexley’s site observations, his statement that he did not suspect commercial firewood sales at the observed scale, and his instruction not to fell further trees until licensed. The 9 August 2024 exchange predates the 13 August access order; whether its later court use misrepresented subsequent compliance requires a separate comparison.
The decision: The decision does not separately discuss the requests, observations or intended court use. Those communications need to be read together, not reduced to a single selected phrase.
Report pp. 14–18; exhibit p. 57
Banking evidence and purchase funding
Allegation: The family disputes the provenance and completeness of the bank-statement copy used to support the adjoining-field purchase and identifies an entry of £121,883.62.
Reviewed material: The annotated copy contains the entry and the features challenged by the family. Account ownership, source of funds and alleged substitution are not established by that marked-up copy; verification and reconciliation with the transaction records are the outstanding tests.
The decision: The decision does not separately address the statement, account identification, bank verification or reconciliation.
Report pp. 19–25; exhibits pp. 54–56, 89–90, 101–103
Conveyancing, completion and tax records
Allegation: The family alleges manipulation of completion and financial records and asks whether the different versions support the transaction described.
Reviewed material: The bundle contains a completion letter, professional-fees invoices, a “TBC” statement, an amended statement and a document headed “Submission Receipt & Electronic SDLT 5 Certificate”. The completion letter says completion occurred on 5 April 2024. A fees invoice is not a client ledger, and its omission of purchase money does not itself establish non-payment. The question is whether the relevant records can be reconciled and authenticated.
The decision: The decision contains no document-by-document resolution of these disputes. It neither authenticates the conveyance nor establishes fabrication.
Report p. 13, pp. 24–25; exhibits pp. 63–65
Disclosure: listed records and supplied copies
Allegation: The family challenges whether the records needed to test the asserted rights and financial evidence were actually supplied.
Reviewed material: The reviewed Seldons letter is dated 17 October 2025. It identifies attached conveyancing documents and privilege/privacy redactions, and offers other listed documents within 14 days of a request. The next comparison is what was requested and what was then provided. The family’s added note calls it a 21 October letter; the original date is used here.
The decision: The decision does not separately identify the disclosure requests, supplied copies or any assessment of compliance.
T10 · The challenge and the policy question
The seven-page 4 November challenge disputes the decision’s remit and reasoning, requests the opening note and communications with Seldons, and seeks reassignment. It expressly says it is not a request for internal review. The reviewed 8 November reply promises a later response, rather than answering the merits.
Two descriptions in the challenge need correction when reporting Price’s position. His decision did not say that only clients could complain: it expressly assessed duties owed to a third party. It also allowed for possible reopening following judicial criticism. Lack of a formal appeal right is not the same as saying reopening is impossible. The publication’s criticism centres on the actual court-first reasoning and treatment of the specific evidence.
The chronology also records a June complaint before Price’s October contact, contrary to the challenge’s suggestion that he intervened before a formal report. The challenge substitutes “other people in the judiciary” for the decision’s “other officers of the Court”; the exhibit bundle itself contains judicial criticism at pages 14–15. Those descriptions are not adopted as evidence of coordination.
The official comparison uses the SRA’s enforcement strategy, assessment guidance and parallel-investigations guidance. The latter two display update dates of 30 December 2021 and 25 November 2019 respectively; they are not new policies first introduced after the decision. The mission is a published institutional commitment, not a sworn statement by Price.
Enforcement strategy ↗ · Assessment guidance ↗ · Parallel proceedings ↗
Read the questions arising from that comparison → · Return to the article →
T5 · The later trial order and the family’s challenge
The reviewed 12-page order packet contains three service copies. Physical pages 1 and 3–4 show an order headed 29 July 2026, dated 22 July 2026, before HHJ Walsh following trial judgment. It declares the right of way and boundaries; paragraph 5 places the stock-proof fence and the pole it describes within the field title. It awards the claimant £5, dismisses the counterclaim, makes injunctions and orders indemnity costs subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, including £64,800 on account.
The order also dispenses with service and refuses permission to appeal that decision and a stay of the costs order. That refusal must not be expanded into an assertion that every possible appeal was refused. The packet does not contain the full substantive judgment or an itemised determination of every Annex E allegation.
The three-page “Initial Filing Concise Grounds of Appeal” seeks permission to challenge the July judgment. Ground 6 describes dismissal of the documentary and dishonesty challenges as unfounded and disputes the fairness of their treatment. Blank signature and date fields remain; the copy is evidence of the proposed grounds, not proof of filing, permission or a current appeal outcome. The approved transcript and subsequent decisions remain to be checked.
T6 · What a reservation means for these questions
A reservation of position is not an admission. The useful questions concern whether it was an interim or final response, what was checked and which reasons or records support the position ultimately taken. Where the general pre-action Practice Direction applies, paragraph 6 envisages a reasoned response and key documents. That does not make every journalistic enquiry a pre-action claim. Read the targeted question
T7 · The verified pleading, email exhibit and redaction question
The 743-page June 2026 trial bundle was examined at the following physical PDF pages. This note identifies the inspected material; it does not reproduce the unredacted bundle.
- Pages 22–36: second amended Particulars of Claim, marked filed 23 September 2025. Paragraph 42, page 33, asserts acquisition of National Grid/Openreach wayleave benefits and expressly relies on MJM2 pages 20–25.
- Pages 35–38: statement of truth, Cornwell’s signature and MJM2 cover. The signature date is 23 September 2025, with September handwritten over February. The statement verifies the pleading’s facts; it is not an express certification that every attached message is an untouched native original.
- Pages 58–63 / MJM2 pages 20–25: six email exhibit pages. The National Grid chain begins with Cornwell-to-Cornwell forwarding on 31 January 2025 at 15:19; the Openreach chain has a 15:24 forwarding header. The reproduced Mayo request names BH67 and BH68. The disputed attribution and insertion allegation still require comparison with the retained original messages.
- Pages 187–190: allocation order headed 6 December 2024. Paragraph 1 allocates the claim to the multi-track; the directions note refers to the 21 November hearing. No later reallocation was established in this review.
No redaction/self-forwarding explanation was found in the inspected pleading, exhibit cover or six email pages. A separate notice or disclosure-list entry was not established by that inspection and is specifically requested.
The explanation: keep the sources distinct.
The family’s October rebuttal, oral summary and SRA submission describe a later explanation involving privileged material. The SRA submission, physical page 7 / internal page 3, points to a Reply associated with the 14 October application. Cornwell’s original Reply was not located in the focused local and mailbox search.
On 18 September 2026, Mr J additionally recalled an oral explanation before Judge Paul Mitchell, possibly at a strike-out hearing, and his own objection. The hearing date, exact words and any ruling are not established. These written and oral accounts may concern more than one occasion; neither is substituted for the missing original Reply or transcript.
Rules linked to the questions
CPR 31.19(3)–(4) provides for a written withholding claim and grounds, in the disclosure list or, without a list, to the person seeking inspection. PD 31B, paragraphs 3, 33 and 35 covers scope, native-format disclosure and altered electronic copies. Paragraph 35 requires notification and preservation of the original; ordinary copying/access metadata changes are excepted. Neither provision prescribes black rectangles.
CPR 32.14 concerns a false statement made or caused in a verified document without honest belief in its truth. That requires identifying the actual statement and state of knowledge, not merely a forwarding header. SRA Code 1.4 and 2.1–2.2 addresses misleading conduct and the integrity of evidence. Applicability must be checked against the dates, disclosure procedure and any relevant court directions.
Read the article section → · Read the regulatory questions →
Handling and scope
This was a focused version and response review, not an exhaustive audit of the complete trial archive or mailbox. Original documents remain unchanged. Private correspondence is summarised here; signatures, private contact details and unredacted source files are not published.