Offen’s early hearing and the intervening directions
The reviewed reproduction of DDJ Offen’s order records the 7 August 2024 hearing, with the order issued on 13 August, in L00BP144. It adjourns the injunction application for lack of time, encourages workable practical accommodation and records reciprocal interim undertakings concerning gates, the chain and use of the route. The reproduced page is physical page 28 of the SRA exhibits RGC-000162355.
Mr J’s later submission recalls an oral recommendation for small claims. The reviewed order page does not itself direct that allocation; the August hearing transcript has not been located. The distinct 29 August L00BP152 notice supplies primary documentary evidence of the proposed track.
The November order also refers to DDJ Gibb’s 26 September disclosure directions as remaining in force. The public challenge therefore does not present an uninterrupted Offen-to-Mitchell sequence or suggest that judicial reassignment itself establishes wrongdoing.
29 August 2024: the actual proposed-allocation notice
The one-page N149A for L00BP152 is headed Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track. Its printed date is 29 August 2024; a supplied filename says 28 August. The printed date is used here. It was produced by M Kelly and names no judge.
“It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.”
It requires a directions questionnaire by 16 September and invites reasons if the proposed track is disputed. The notice is provisional. It was attached to Mr J’s verified 16 April 2025 email alongside his 17-page challenge. Its importance is the documented initial assessment, not an assertion that it bound every later allocation decision.
Miss E’s pre-CCMC submission: representation and means
The reviewed D13 document is titled CCMC Ms Evans Defence 18 Nov; its running header is dated 17 November 2024. Page 24 reports disengaging representation because attendance would cost £3,000 for a solicitor plus £2,000 for a barrister. Pages 27–28 oppose multi-track, refer to her position as a senior citizen and seek an independent boundary expert. Pages 30–31 address ADR.
This establishes the content of her court-directed submission before the 21 November hearing. The filing acknowledgement has not been located, so the document is not by itself proof that Mitchell personally read every passage. CM-02 and CM-07 seek that consideration and referral record.
The annotated draft at pages 23–26 is not an actual small-claims order. The claim reproduced at page 17 seeks boundary/easement declarations and injunctions; its monetary value is not stated. The £365 court fee is not the value of the claim.
October–November 2024: the efforts to avoid further expense
The D13/D14 correspondence records Rattu proposing an early ADR stay on 24 October. Seldons’ 25 October reply agrees to ADR in principle but prefers a stay after the CCMC. Its 30 October response accepts an earlier stay on conditions, including continuing disclosure, a defendant-prepared application and a shared application fee. On 12 November, Seldons declines a short-notice meeting, makes ADR conditional on disclosure and disputes that a concluded mutual agreement exists.
The family’s concern is whether a less expensive route could have been secured earlier and pursued effectively. The correspondence does not support saying that Seldons refused all ADR or that a binding settlement had already been achieved. A 28 October proposal is expressly marked without prejudice save as to costs; it is not reproduced in this publication pending an appropriate privilege review.
21 November 2024: what Mitchell’s order did—and did not explain
The allocation/directions order following the 21 November CCMC, with notice dated 6 December 2024, appears at physical pages 187–190 of the June 2026 trial bundle. It records Miss E in person with Mr J present and claimant’s counsel Jack Christopher Kelsey Webb (professionally Jack Webb; barrister, 3PB, Bristol; called to the Bar in 2016).
- Allocation to the multi-track.
- An ADR stay until 21 January 2025.
- A jointly instructed surveyor, with costs initially shared equally.
- The claimant’s estimated costs approved at £35,750.
- No defendant costs-management order, because Miss E was now in person and not relying on her earlier budget.
The written order does not give a detailed comparative analysis of available tracks and Miss E’s means. The complete oral reasons have not been reviewed. Mr J’s April letter itself recalls Mitchell referring to numerous witnesses as justification for a longer hearing and multi-track; that account must not be omitted while asserting there was no explanation whatsoever.
A note removes a conveyancing-file paragraph that had appeared in a draft but was not ordered at the hearing, while confirming DDJ Gibb’s earlier disclosure order remains operative. The approved estimated budget is not a finding that the claimant had paid that amount or an immediate award against Miss E.
16 April 2025: the warning was sent to the courts
The verified sent email is headed Mayo v Evans (Claim No: L00BP152) – For the Urgent Attention of Paul Mitchell (Designated Civil Judge for Cornwall, Devon and Dorset; Exeter Combined Court Centre), displayed as 16 April 2025. It was addressed to Barnstaple hearings and CLO Plymouth, with court and solicitor recipients copied. It attached the small-claims notice and the 17-page Urgent Judicial Challenge.
Pages 3–4 describe Miss E as a 70-year-old pensioner and predict combined costs of £70,000–£100,000 against Mr J’s stated £3,000 strip valuation. Page 7 refers to a £500 local survey quote. Pages 12–15 seek reallocation and describe her lack of means. These are the author’s contemporaneous assessments and requests, not a court valuation or proof of actual total expenditure.
The letter came after the November allocation; the earlier warning is in Miss E’s November submission. For full context, page 15 also asks for the defence and counterclaim to be struck out if multi-track is maintained. Its general-boundary and other legal assertions are not adopted here as authoritative statements of law. The verified email establishes sending to the court recipients, not personal reading of all pages by the judge.
17 April 2025: the recorded procedural response
The one-page order is dated 17 April, with a notice heading dated 25 April. It appoints Paul Fassam as single joint expert, initially on the defendant’s instructions, with further documents handled transparently. It refers to a written submission from the defendant’s son, described as a non-party, seeking multiple forms of relief; it says no proper application has been made, notes that Miss E now has solicitors, and refers to the Part 23 application procedure.
This closely follows the verified 16 April warning and matches the procedural response recalled by Mr J, but the order does not identify that submission by date or title. It is a response—not silence. Its text does not substantively analyse the warning about proportionality. CM-05 asks which submission it addressed and where the underlying concern was determined.
The rules behind the challenge
CPR 1: overriding objective and active management · CPR 3.1A: unrepresented parties · PD1A: vulnerability and participation · CPR 26: proposal and allocation factors · PD26: brief reasons and allocation guidance · CPR 27.5: expert evidence in small claims
The challenge concerns proceedings in England and Wales. The rules require a case-specific assessment; age or inability to afford representation is not an automatic entitlement to a particular track.
Existing judicial immunity and the reform being proposed
Under English common law, judges generally have personal civil immunity for judicial acts within their jurisdiction, including where malice is alleged. An allegedly disproportionate exercise of allocation powers does not by itself establish an absence of jurisdiction. Hurnam v Veerabudren [2026] UKPC 29, paragraphs 25–30, discusses these English-law principles in a Mauritius appeal; it is persuasive Privy Council analysis, not an English appellate determination of this case.
The publication’s proposal seeks a change in the law: an accessible independent route to compensation, and personal financial liability where justified, following findings of deliberate judicial abuse and identifiable loss caused by it. It distinguishes proven abuse from honest error or an unpopular decision. It neither establishes Mitchell’s liability nor replaces advice about existing remedies and their time limits.
The Ministry of Justice’s justice-policy responsibilities and Parliament’s law-making role explain the separate institutional questions. These bodies are named as policy respondents, not as alleged participants in the case. JR-01 and JR-02 have not been sent by this publication.
The records needed to complete the account
- Offen’s August hearing transcript and the original directions questionnaires.
- The November CCMC transcript, allocation submissions and complete reasons.
- The November submission’s filing and referral acknowledgements.
- Later applications to vary directions or track, and their decisions.
- A dated schedule separating budgets, claims, orders, actual payments and causally linked losses.
The named questions seek these records · The reported consequences