Investigations in the public interestEvidence. Enquiry. Accountability.

Paul Mitchell · Leslie Adrian Blohm · The costs record

She asked how the costs were calculated.
Later, disclosure was refused.

Miss E’s public review contains two written requests to Paul Mitchell about the March 2025 costs order. The later order before Leslie Adrian Blohm expressly refuses disclosure of the N260 forms underlying the costs orders under potential challenge. Read the requests and the refusal together.

Miss E and Mr J allege deliberate suppression of the underlying costs evidence. They allege that Paul Mitchell’s assessment imposed an illegitimate financial burden and that Leslie Adrian Blohm’s later disclosure refusal shields that assessment from scrutiny. Mr J alleges knowing judicial wrongdoing and asks that possible collusion and criminal conduct be investigated. Their challenge is specific: identify the original costs statement, its filing and service record, the calculation and the reasons for refusing access.

An order to pay. Repeated requests for the calculation. Then an order refusing disclosure. Where is the record that answers her?

Bristol · Judicial decisions · Named questions

Leslie Adrian Blohm

Jump to all 5 questions addressed to this recipient →

Senior Circuit Judge · Designated Civil Judge · Bristol

The costs material. The transfer refusal. The demand for independent scrutiny. Miss E challenges the handling of her appeal and enforcement proceedings and seeks determination independent of the judge whose handling she disputes.

Explain the decisions. Identify the reasons.

The 19 August order refuses requested N260 disclosure, recusal and London transfer, and reserves a further enforcement hearing to Blohm. Miss E alleges partiality and misuse of the procedural handling. Mr J alleges that the refusal protects earlier improper costs handling. The named questions below ask for the records and reasons that allow those allegations to be examined.

Compare the August and September documents →

Professional identity

The official appointment announcement identifies Leslie Adrian Blohm KC. The Judiciary’s Bristol listing records his role as Designated Civil Judge for Avon, Somerset and Gloucester from October 2022. He is based in Bristol.

Official appointment announcement · Judiciary’s Bristol professional listing

Equal before the law. Accountable without exception.

The question pack

These questions were prepared on 22 September 2026 and have not yet been sent by this publication. Miss E’s preceding requests and the reviewed decisions are set out in the linked article.

IN-01 · Leslie Adrian Blohm

Which transfer request was refused—and by whose authority?

Which proceedings and transfer request did paragraph 2 of the 19 August order determine? If that refusal extended to the separately filed Walsh appeal’s request under PD52B 2.3, identify the authority or nomination, the material considered and the recorded reasons.

Why this matters: A refusal in an enforcement-related order must be connected to the particular transfer request it decided. Read the underlying record →

IN-02 · Leslie Adrian Blohm

Why refuse the underlying costs documents?

Which N260 forms and costs orders did paragraph 3 cover? What legal basis, recorded reasons and evidence justified refusing disclosure after Miss E’s repeated requests for the costs schedule and calculation? How was she to test the assessment and claimed service? Identify the record that answers her allegation that the refusal shields an illegitimate assessment from scrutiny.

Why this matters: Her public-review letters of 13 November and 12 December 2025 request the schedule and reasons. The later order expressly refuses N260 disclosure. Read the letters and refusal together. Read the underlying record →

IN-03 · Leslie Adrian Blohm

Why reserve further consideration to the same judge?

What objection or recusal grounds were before the court on 19 August, how were they assessed, and where are the reasons for refusal recorded? Why was the further enforcement hearing reserved to Leslie Adrian Blohm, and what consideration was given to another judge?

Why this matters: The independence of the handling is itself challenged; the decision and its reasons need to address the objection actually made. Read the underlying record →

IN-04 · Leslie Adrian Blohm / HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records

What explains the changing procedural references?

Identify the orders and administrative records explaining KA-2025-BRS-000045 on the August order, L00BP152 on the September N24 and the KA/2025 reference ending 52 printed in its body. How do they relate to the separate enforcement application Miss E identifies as KB-2026-BRS-000052, and what relief was being determined?

Why this matters: The court, proceeding and route of challenge should be identifiable from the record. Read the underlying record →

IN-05 · Leslie Adrian Blohm / HMCTS · Bristol and Barnstaple court records

Which directions govern the November hearing?

The September N24 lists 9 November 2026 but retains a 26 August deadline and an availability period ending 4 November. Which directions govern, what was corrected or superseded, and when and on whom were the operative order and hearing notice served?

Why this matters: The August deadline appeared in the earlier order too. The question is how the September document operates and whether its directions were made clear. Read the underlying record →

The response record

The operative refusals appear in the reviewed August order and September N24. The article identifies the further reasons, authority and records requested by Miss E. Any relevant transcript, ruling or substantive response will be linked to the particular question it answers.

Read Miss E’s own words → Supply a response or source record

The complete question index

Questions across the case

5 existing questions addressed to Leslie Adrian Blohm. Each link opens its full wording, source and response position.

Filter the full register for this recipient