Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.
The Documents / L

Source note · Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

October 2025: the summary of oral argument for the strike-out hearing

The written oral-argument summary for the 14 October 2025 hearing at Barnstaple County Court, including the defendant’s editing and redaction allegations.

LParty submission supplied as court-filed26 PDF pagesSupplied PDF copy reviewed · 12 September 2026

What is in the file

The Unanswered Record has examined all 26 pages in this supplied PDF copy. Page references below refer to that copy.

The cover identifies the County Court at Barnstaple, claim L00BP152, and the hearing of 14 October 2025. The final page is dated 13 October 2025 and contains handwritten signatures. Mr J says this document was filed with the court under a statement of truth. The supplied summary is a party submission, not a transcript of what was said or a judgment.

The submission’s exact words

Page 2, paragraph 2 — the defendant’s allegation:

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.

Page 5, final paragraph — the defendant’s assessment of the explanation:

The explanation later offered — that this was “redaction” — was retrospective and untenable.

The supporting material identified

Page 5 refers to an “Evidential Challenge: National Grid Fabrication” as Annex E. The annex appearing on pages 25–26 is headed as a formal accusation, not a reproduced Cornwell reply. Page 26 identifies the primary exhibits as sent separately. The original written explanation is not included here.

How to read these quotations

They reproduce the submission’s allegations, not an admission we have read in Mr Cornwell’s own reply and not a finding by the court. The supplied copy does not display a statement-of-truth declaration for the summary; that filing description is Mr J’s account. The article uses the passages to identify what was challenged, then asks for the records needed to test it.

Two uploaded copies of this 26-page document are byte-identical and are counted once. Page references in this note refer to the PDF pages, not separately numbered exhibits.

Publication status

The original PDF is retained outside this website. This source note summarises the supplied copy and does not replace the document itself. A publication copy has not yet been prepared.

Read the related article