Related reporting · Annex E
The wider allegation and response record.
Open this party’s Annex E questions → · Read the overview, replies and later outcomes →
The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
Luke Cornwell
The disputed printout names you at Seldons as both sender and recipient. Mr J says the plan and emails were relied upon in court while the requested BH68 agreement remained unproduced and the email-authentication requests unresolved. His court submissions allege editing and challenge its disclosure. The concern is the connection between those points: what verified the material, what did it establish, and why was it used? These questions seek the agreement, original messages, version history and explanation of court reliance.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 12 September 2026
Attributed allegation · BH68-A03
The family alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 into correspondence originally concerning BH67 and used it with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. Mr J alleges undisclosed editing with an explanation only after challenge. The 27 October 2025 email expressly addresses both Cornwell and Seldons LLP and demands preservation of originals and metadata.
Miss E and Mr J · Annex E and October 2025 notices; primary court record reviewed 18 September 2026
Evidence, response and full allegation record ↓This pack has not been sent by this publication. Earlier requests and the available replies are identified below. New executive and firm-review questions are proposed; no new response deadline has been set.
BH68-04 · Proposed · not yet sent
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.
Question directed to: Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · concerning Mr Mayo’s representation described in the correspondence · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom
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.
The recorded response 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.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
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.
The issue is why this plan was introduced and what evidential basis supported its reported use—not simply whether it was used. Mr J says it was relied upon, was not suitable as a wayleave-agreement plan, and did not supply the missing executed agreement. The correspondence records Mr Shackson’s later general-area explanation. The reported court use and timing are Mr J’s account; this question seeks the precise filing, justification and underlying agreement.
Question wording updated 13 September 2026 · not sent by this publication
Supporting source notes: C, pp. 1–2 · B, pp. 2–7 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, p. 7 · L, pp. 2, 5
BH68-08 · Proposed · not yet sent
Why self-forward the disputed email—and what verifies it?
The 31 January 2025 header names you as both sender and recipient: why did you self-forward the exchange attributed to Amelia Skea and Mr Mayo? The family’s Annex E specifically alleges insertion of BH68 into correspondence originally about BH67. Was the phrase “The pole numbers are BH67 and BH68” present in the message received from your source? Produce that message and the native exchange, including attachments, and compare them with the self-forwarded and court-filed versions. Identify every addition, removal or change, who made it and when. If you removed material on privilege grounds, identify the dated written notice or disclosure-list entry under CPR 31.19, its recipients and the grounds for withholding. Where is the unaltered original preserved under PD 31B paragraph 35? If no notice exists, explain why and identify any relevant direction. Paragraph 42 of the second amended claim relies on MJM2 pages 20–25: what checks supported that verified assertion? Identify the first redaction explanation and any hearing record addressing Mr J’s reported objection. Mr J says the emails were relied upon while the requested agreement and Ms Skea’s authentication remained outstanding: what checks supported that reliance, and which agreement supported the claimed BH68 rights? Provide the dated explanation and version comparison with appropriate protection for genuinely confidential information.
Question directed to: Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom
The concern is not self-forwarding in isolation. It is whether a disputed copy carried the weight of an agreement that the family says was never produced, without a checkable confirmation from the attributed sender. The integrity test connects provenance, meaning and reliance: which words were actually sent, what changed, what verified them and what justified the use made of them in court?
The recorded response The supplied printout shows the forwarding header. The October 2025 rebuttal and oral summary expressly allege a written admission of editing and challenge a later redaction explanation. Mr J says the explanation concerned private client information and followed the family’s challenge. The question seeks the dated explanation and a comparison of the versions. A separately reviewed 24 October 2025 email expressly rejects the tampering allegations as baseless and supplies further copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally. The question seeks the original-source and content comparison behind that explanation.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
Based on the self-forwarding header in Document F, Miss E’s verification requests in Document G, the October 2025 submissions K and L, and Mr J’s account. No sending date or response deadline has been recorded for this editorial question. Revised on 13 September 2026 to connect the authentication request, Mr J’s account of court reliance, the requested agreement and the self-forwarded copy. The new wording has not been sent by this publication. Newly reviewed Annex E, the 27 October 2025 outgoing notice to Cornwell/Seldons and Annex J-2 particularise the earlier allegation. They are not a record of sending this new question.
Mr J’s concern is cumulative: no executed BH68 agreement in Mr Mayo’s name has been produced to the family, the attributed sender has not provided the authentication they seek, and the court copy was self-forwarded with editing explained only after challenge, according to his account. He alleges these connected gaps raise serious doubts about the email’s authenticity and its use as evidence. This question asks Mr Cornwell to address that connection directly: identify the checks, produce the originals and agreement, and account for each change and its disclosure.
Question wording updated 13 September 2026 · not sent
Supporting source notes: F, pp. 1–2 · G, pp. 3–5 · A, pp. 4–6 · D, pp. 3–5 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · T, recorded 24 October replies and T7: paragraph 42, MJM2 and redaction rules
A response belongs beside the question
Answer by question number.
State what you accept or dispute. Identify the supporting document and the relevant passage. If a record cannot be provided, explain why and what can be verified instead. Material answers and corrections will be considered and reflected alongside the relevant question.
Send your response to theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. This opens an email draft; it does not submit or send anything automatically. Please avoid sending unredacted sensitive personal information.
Prepare a numbered response ↗Readers with relevant evidence or corrections should contact the editorial desk. Please do not organise repeated messages to individual employees.
Allegations & Questions · Luke Cornwell
The issues. The record. The answer.
Named in an allegation. The entries below state who raises each allegation or concern, the supporting sources and the response status.
BH68-A03 · Attributed allegation
What changed before the emails reached court?
Miss E and Mr J · Annex E and October 2025 notices; primary court record reviewed 18 September 2026
The family alleges that Luke Cornwell inserted BH68 into correspondence originally concerning BH67 and used it with Mr Mayo to support the boundary claim. Mr J alleges undisclosed editing with an explanation only after challenge. The 27 October 2025 email expressly addresses both Cornwell and Seldons LLP and demands preservation of originals and metadata.
- The supporting record
- The self-forwarded chain appears in MJM2 pages 20–25, relied on at paragraph 42 of the second amended claim. The pleading, statement of truth and Cornwell’s signature dated 23 September 2025 are in the reviewed trial bundle. No redaction explanation appears in those inspected pages or the exhibit cover. The family’s submissions refer to a written explanation; its original remains to be located.
F, p. 1 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · P, pp. 1–3 · T, receipt, denial, outcomes and T7: redaction record
- The recorded response
- Mr J recalls a privilege/redaction explanation in court, possibly before Judge Paul Mitchell at a strike-out hearing, and says he objected; the hearing, date and words remain unconfirmed. Separately, Cornwell’s 24 October 2025 email denies tampering and supplies further copies said to have been printed by Mr Mayo and delivered personally. Seldons’ 28 October letter acknowledges the formal notice and attachments and reserves the firm’s position. A native-message comparison and documented review outcome remain sought.
- The answer still sought
- Identify each change, the written notice and withholding grounds under CPR 31.19, and the preserved original under PD 31B paragraph 35. Identify the first explanation, the hearing record and the checks supporting paragraph 42. What did Seldons do after the objection and notice?
- Why it matters
- Readers must be able to distinguish an original message from an edited disclosure copy and check whether its meaning was preserved.
- Was it put to this party?
- Document N is the 27 October 2025 outgoing email addressed to Cornwell and Seldons with Annex E, J-1 and J-2 listed. A separate letter of 28 October acknowledges receipt of the correspondence and attachments. The Outlook Annex E attachment is two pages, not the later expanded 24-page version updated 6 February 2026. BH68-04, BH68-08 and BH68-10 remain proposed questions not sent by this publication.
Professional affiliation & public office
Luke Cornwell · Solicitor & Partner · Seldons Solicitors (Seldons LLP) · Bideford, Devon
Organisation: Seldons LLP.
Seldons LLP public office: 18 The Quay, Bideford, Devon, EX39 2HF, United Kingdom.
The SRA lists Luke Cornwell as working at Seldons LLP. The firm’s biography describes him as a solicitor and partner.
Documented involvement
The forwarding header reads “Luke Cornwell – Seldons”. Miss E’s email describes Mr Mayo’s solicitors as Luke Cornwell of Seldons Solicitors. This identifies the reported connection; it is not a finding about his conduct.
Source references: C, p. 2 · B, p. 6 · F, pp. 1–2 · K, pp. 5, 7, 17–18 · L, pp. 2, 5 · M, pp. 12–13, 19–20 · N, pp. 1–2 · O, pp. 2–4 · P, pp. 1–3 · Q, pp. 1–3 · T, October response trail and T7: pleading, exhibit and redaction.
Separate regulatory questions · proposed, not submitted
Does this record warrant an SRA investigation?Three solicitor-conduct concerns and a separate review of the regulator’s handling. Read the submission, acknowledged receipt, closure and questions for Laurence Price and the SRA.
Open the SRA review and questions ↗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