The Unanswered Record · Party question pack
Questions for
His Honour Judge Paul Mitchell
Judge Mitchell: Miss E and Mr J challenge the legitimacy and proportionality of the costs decision following the 10 March 2025 hearing. They say the supporting costs statement and an adequate explanation have not been supplied despite repeated requests. The 29 April 2026 final notice puts the missing-record question to you directly. Identify the material considered, the calculation, the service record and the reasons. If no costs statement was available, say so and explain the basis on which the assessment proceeded.
Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152 · Compiled 15 September 2026
Attributed challenge to the costs decision · COSTS-A01
Miss E and Mr J challenge the legitimacy and proportionality of the costs decision. They allege that the supporting costs statement has not been produced, does not appear on the court file and remains undisclosed despite repeated requests. The final notice directs the demand for the record and reasons to Judge Paul Mitchell.
Miss E and Mr J · signed final notice and published requests
Evidence, response and full allegation record ↓This pack has not been sent by this publication. Earlier requests and the available replies are identified below. The numbered wording develops the family’s costs requests; no new response deadline has been set.
COSTS-01 · Unresolved according to the family
Judge Mitchell: what record supported the costs assessment?
What N260 or equivalent signed costs statement was before you when costs were assessed following the 10 March 2025 hearing? Identify the document, its date and where it is held, and provide the available copy through the court. If no such statement was available, what other material supported the assessment and why did the court proceed on that basis?
Question directed to: His Honour Judge Paul Mitchell · case-specific records and response through the relevant court / HMCTS
A financial order must be capable of explanation by reference to the material and reasoning used. The central issue is the basis of the assessment, not simply whether a document carries a particular form number.
The recorded response The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Identify what was actually before the judge. If the court cannot locate a costs statement, state what searches were made, their result, and the alternative basis recorded for the assessment.
Final notice dated 29 April 2026 · family’s response position updated 15 September 2026
Supporting source notes: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-02 · Unresolved according to the family
When was the costs statement filed—and when was Miss E given it?
Identify when and how the costs statement was filed with the court and served on Miss E. Produce the filing and service record. If it was not filed or served within the applicable time, how was that addressed, and what opportunity was Miss E given to examine and challenge the costs sought? Mr J reports that Mr Mayo stated under oath that the N260 was sent to all parties on 17 March 2025, and the family disputes that claim. What record establishes the asserted service, and what costs material was available at the earlier 10 March hearing?
Question directed to: His Honour Judge Paul Mitchell · case-specific records and response through the relevant court / HMCTS
The person facing a financial demand needs to know its basis and have a meaningful opportunity to challenge it. Filing with the court and serving the other party are separate matters.
The recorded response The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
The family reports non-receipt. The court is asked to distinguish filing, service and the opportunity to respond, and identify the evidence for each.
Final notice dated 29 April 2026 · family’s response position updated 15 September 2026
Supporting source notes: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-03 · Unresolved according to the family
How were the £3,500 and £1,750 figures reached?
The published correspondence challenges an assessment of £3,500 and a £1,750 payment requirement. What work, hours, rates, fees and adjustments produced those figures? Identify the recorded reasoning, the operative order and the payment deadline. Explain the basis for the payment timing that Miss E describes as immediate.
Question directed to: His Honour Judge Paul Mitchell · case-specific records and response through the relevant court / HMCTS
The amount assessed, the amount payable and the time for payment each require a clear explanation. A short hearing alone does not reveal all the work for which costs may have been sought.
The recorded response The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Reconcile the figures with the itemised claim, the decision and its operative wording. The amounts and description of immediate payment here come from the family’s published correspondence; the question seeks the underlying order and calculation.
Final notice dated 29 April 2026 · family’s response position updated 15 September 2026
Supporting source notes: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-04 · Unresolved according to the family
Where are the reasons for the costs decision?
Where are the reasons explaining the costs assessment and payment requirement recorded? Identify any judgment, order, hearing recording, transcript or contemporaneous note that contains them, and explain how Miss E can obtain the relevant record. What costs submissions were considered, and what objections by Miss E were addressed?
Question directed to: His Honour Judge Paul Mitchell · case-specific records and response through the relevant court / HMCTS
A party cannot meaningfully understand or challenge a decision if its reasoning cannot be located. The question calls for the decision’s recorded basis, not a private discussion with the judge.
The recorded response The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
Locate the reasoning in an identifiable record and state the access route. If a requested record is unavailable, identify which record, why it is unavailable and what alternative account can be supplied.
Final notice dated 29 April 2026 · family’s response position updated 15 September 2026
Supporting source notes: R, pp. 1–2
COSTS-05 · Unresolved according to the family
Why do the costs-record requests remain unresolved?
What substantive response addresses the requests repeated in the 29 April 2026 final notice? Identify the date, recipient and supporting records for any response already given. If the requested documents or reasons have not been provided, explain what remains outstanding, who is responsible for responding and how the request will be resolved.
Question directed to: His Honour Judge Paul Mitchell · case-specific records and response through the relevant court / HMCTS
Repeated requests for the basis of a financial order should lead to a traceable outcome. The continuing reported gap matters because it leaves the affected party unable to check the decision against its supporting record.
The recorded response The reviewed final notice records the author’s position that no N260 or adequate explanation had been supplied. No substantive reply resolving these points has been provided to this publication. Mr J reports that the requests remain unresolved.
Dates, delivery and the point still outstanding
The supplied signed final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes repeated requests exceeding one year. Mr J reports that these remain unanswered as of 15 September 2026. This page restates and specifies those requests; it is not a newly delivered enquiry from The Unanswered Record. The seven-day period in the letter was requested by its author, not imposed by this publication or identified as a court direction.
The family reports more than a year of requests without the substantive answer sought. Identify an existing answer or give a specific explanation and route to resolution; acknowledgement alone would not resolve the document question.
Final notice dated 29 April 2026 · family’s response position updated 15 September 2026
Supporting source notes: R, pp. 1–2
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 · His Honour Judge Paul Mitchell
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.
COSTS-A01 · Attributed challenge to the costs decision
A costs order. A missing supporting record, according to the family.
Miss E and Mr J · signed final notice and published requests
Miss E and Mr J challenge the legitimacy and proportionality of the costs decision. They allege that the supporting costs statement has not been produced, does not appear on the court file and remains undisclosed despite repeated requests. The final notice directs the demand for the record and reasons to Judge Paul Mitchell.
- The supporting record
- The two-page final notice dated 29 April 2026 asks for the N260, filing and service details, and a reasoned explanation. The earlier published review contains requests about £3,500 assessed and £1,750 imposed. The assertion about the court file is made in Mr J’s letter; it is not an independent court-file inspection by this publication.
- The recorded response
- Mr J reports that the substantive requests remain unresolved as of 15 September 2026. No reply resolving these questions has been supplied to this publication.
- The answer still sought
- Identify the statement or other material considered. Show the filing and service record. Explain the calculation and payment timing. Locate the recorded reasons.
- Why it matters
- The exercise of judicial power over a person’s finances must be open to scrutiny through identifiable records and reasons.
- Was it put to this party?
- The supplied final notice is addressed to Judge Paul Mitchell and describes earlier requests. These numbered questions are editorial restatements and elaborations of those requests; this pack has not been sent by the publication.
Professional affiliation & public office
HHJ Paul Mitchell · Judiciary of England and Wales · Exeter Combined Court Centre
The official appointment announcement and current leadership directory identify the judicial role shown here. Exeter is his listed court centre; the family’s costs correspondence concerns the Barnstaple County Court case. These are distinct pieces of context.
Documented involvement
Mr J’s signed final notice of 29 April 2026 addresses Judge Paul Mitchell about the costs decision following the 10 March 2025 hearing in L00BP152. It asks for the N260, filing and service details, and reasons. The case connection is recorded in that correspondence; the judicial office is verified separately through the Judiciary’s published directory.
Source references: R, pp. 1–2.
The allegation · Contributor account
The family’s allegation: an unjustified order used as pressure.
Miss E and Mr J allege that the costs order was fictitious and illegitimate, intended to exert coercive pressure rather than reflect a justified assessment. They point to the continued non-production of the underlying costs statement, calculation and adequate reasons as the basis for that allegation.
Mr J says Miss E presented her signed BH68 wayleave agreement at the hearing, while Mr Mayo relied on the disputed email attributed to Amelia Skea. He questions why costs were imposed against Miss E in those circumstances and what the court recorded about the competing material.
Mr J says requests for the basis of the amount have been put to Judge Paul Mitchell, Jack Webb, Luke Cornwell and Mark John Mayo. The question is specific: identify the costs statement, the work and figures claimed, the filing and service record, and the reasons for the amount ordered. If those records cannot be produced, explain why.
10 March hearing. 17 March claimed service.
Mr J also reports that Mr Mayo stated under oath that the N260 was sent to all parties on 17 March 2025. Miss E and Mr J dispute that account, say no statement or proof of that service has been produced to them, and allege a deliberate false statement. They seek investigation of that allegation as possible contempt of court.
The reported service date is seven days after the 10 March hearing. What costs statement was before the judge on 10 March? What was allegedly sent on 17 March, to whom and by what method? Produce that document and the dispatch and service evidence, and explain how the dates relate to the assessment and the order dated 21 March.
For summary assessment of costs, Practice Direction 44, paragraph 9.5, requires an itemised, signed statement broadly following N260; for hearings other than fast-track trials, filing and service are required at least 24 hours before the hearing. Paragraph 9.6 addresses non-compliance in the court’s costs decision. The question is what was supplied, when, and how any failure was addressed. Practice Direction 44, paragraphs 9.5–9.6 ↗
What justified the amount, and what consideration was given to Miss E’s evidence and objections? The hearing record and the costs record are both needed to examine the family’s challenge.
The procedural question
Practice Direction 44 generally requires a signed, itemised statement broadly following N260 and sets filing and service requirements. Paragraph 9.6 addresses non-compliance as a matter for the court’s costs decision. The questions therefore ask what material was considered and how any filing or service failure was dealt with; the absence of an N260 copy alone does not establish that the order was void.
Official Practice Direction 44, paragraphs 9.5–9.6 ↗
Questions about a particular case or order should be routed through the relevant court. This page does not invite private approaches to the judge or repeated messages from readers. Judiciary: case and court contact guidance ↗
Related reporting
BH68 and the costs hearing: the connection described by Mr J →
This entry records an evidenced connection. It does not state that the person or organisation committed wrongdoing.
A place for the answer.
Judge Paul Mitchell, the court or HMCTS, and any party with relevant information may provide a response through the appropriate official channel or contact theunansweredrecord@gmail.com. Quote the question number and identify the supporting record. Material replies and corrections will be reflected alongside the questions.