Allegations & Questions · 3PB Barristers
The issues. The record. The answer.
Related record / background. No separate allegation against this party is catalogued in the reviewed reporting. Any linked issue below is included for context, not as an accusation against this party.
Documented involvement
The official chambers profile identifies Jack Webb as a barrister advising and representing Mr Mayo in this case. Membership of chambers does not establish that other members acted in the case or that chambers participated in alleged conduct.
Official 3PB chambers profile for Jack Webb, Land and Boundaries section, checked 12 September 2026. The external profile names the protected contributors, so it is not reproduced or directly linked in this draft.
Questions connected to this party
The question connections.
No question in this register is recorded as sent directly to 3PB Barristers. Being named in a document is not the same as being asked a question.
Related questions · see recipient details.
Representation context · delivery of this question not established
Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?
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.
Sending status Not yet sent
What the supplied reply addresses
Mr Shackson’s 10 February 2026 explanation describes a general-area map, “not any particular title”, and says it was not produced through registered chartered-surveyor survey work. This does not answer why it was reportedly introduced and relied upon in court, or identify the executed agreement requested by the family.
Updated 13 September 2026 from Mr J’s account and the plan correspondence. Mr J says the disputed emails were put before the court in material supported by a statement of truth. The October 2025 submissions now reviewed also make that allegation. The question addresses the reported late introduction of the plan, court reliance and supporting agreement. It has not been sent by this publication.
Documents: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5
Related reporting
Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan: the questions in the record.
This entry records an evidenced connection. It does not state that the person or organisation committed wrongdoing.
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