FUND-11 / HDI Global
HDI Global: did you receive the fraud allegations—in full?
When did you first receive the allegations of fraudulent documentation and financial misrepresentation against Seldons LLP and Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell? Identify the underwriting entity, relevant policy, notification reference, sender and receipt date. Did the January preservation notice, supporting evidence and both March letters before claim reach you in full? If not, identify what was missing and when it was requested.
FUND-12 / Seldons LLP · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell
Seldons and Cornwell: show when and how you notified the insurer.
Mr J asked for the insurer and policy number in the notice sent on 8 January 2026. Your 9 January reply named HDI Global and Browne Jacobson but supplied no policy number. Supply the relevant insurer’s full legal identity, policy number and claims address/contact; identify the applicable notification clause, triggering event and deadline, and explain when and how you complied. Provide a dated record of the documents transmitted, protecting privileged advice.
FUND-13 / Browne Jacobson LLP
Browne Jacobson: did you authorise the position attributed to insurer solicitors?
Seldons named Browne Jacobson LLP and Gary Oldroyd on 9 January. On 1 April it said its insurer’s solicitors agreed the proposed claims were clearly vexatious and were content for the firm to respond directly. Were you those solicitors? Who instructed you, whom did you represent, what allegation documents had you received, and did you authorise that description of your position? If it is inaccurate, what correction is required?
FUND-14 / Solicitors Regulation Authority
SRA: was the requested insurance information properly supplied?
Assess the January request and reply, the March letters before claim and the 1 April response against rule 9.2. Does its scope condition apply to the asserted claims, and if so, were the required insurer, policy and claims-contact details supplied? Identify any missing information and the steps required to secure it.
FUND-15 / HDI Global · Browne Jacobson LLP · Seldons LLP · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell
Preserve the notification trail. What was actually put before the insurer?
Will you preserve the notifications, acknowledgments, attachment lists, relevant version history and instructions concerning the response to the claims? Identify which records establish that the allegations and supporting documents—not merely a summary dismissing them—were transmitted. Provide non-privileged confirmation of dates, recipients and document inventories, with a suitable route for examination of any protected material.
FUND-10 / Mark John Mayo
What evidence supports the accusations—and what answers the allegation of financial coercion?
Identify the factual basis for each accusation you advanced or adopted that Miss E challenges in the linked amended pleadings and police–Council record. What contrary evidence and responses were considered, and what corrections, if any, followed? Explain how the financial demands and proposed enforcement related to those allegations and answer her contention that the process was used for an improper financial advantage.
FUND-01 / Mark John Mayo · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
The house was expressly in view. What justified the pursuit?
Your 23 June 2025 letter linked recovery against the home to adding or substituting Mr J. Identify the pleaded conduct, ownership information and legal grounds relied on at each stage. What consideration was given to Miss E’s vulnerability, and what answers the family’s allegation that the process was used to extract value from the home?
FUND-02 / Mark John Mayo · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
What liability existed—not simply what total was demanded?
Identify, for each disputed costs claim, the client, relevant retainer terms, work, rate, invoice or accrued liability, disbursements, credits and assessment. Distinguish paid costs, enforceable unpaid liability, estimates and awards. What proportionate evidence can be provided or put before the court, with privileged advice and unrelated transactions protected?
FUND-03 / Mark John Mayo · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
If the funding is conditional, what costs remain recoverable?
Does a conditional fee, deferred fee, company payment or other third-party arrangement affect the liability claimed from Miss E or Mr J? Identify the relevant basis and any condition, reduction or payment already accounted for. A conditional agreement is not itself misconduct; the question is whether the costs claimed accurately reflect the recoverable liability.
FUND-04 / Mark John Mayo · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
Why was financial verification refused?
Explain the 9 January and 1 April 2026 responses against the specific requests for liability, rates and costs verification. Which matters are genuinely irrelevant or privileged, and what non-privileged evidence or appropriate certificate answers the disputed entitlement? Identify the operative budget and distinguish incurred from estimated costs.
FUND-05 / Mark John Mayo · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
Who received the legal services—and why was VAT recoverable from Miss E?
Clarify the company-payment account reported from the 22 May 2026 hearing. Identify the company’s full registered name and number, the invoices and the payment record. Was the company Mayo Media 2015 Ltd (09412563), of which Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon) is a director, or another entity? Who was the client and person liable, and was VAT recoverable as input tax by the receiving party? Where entitlement was disputed, identify the PD44 paragraph 2.5 certificate or supporting evidence. The payment route alone does not answer those questions.
FUND-06 / Leslie Adrian Blohm
What evidence and calculation supported the VAT and final amount?
Identify the VAT evidence, rate and court-fee treatment, the Grade A/Grade B correction and the calculation underlying the April and May awards. Explain the relationship between the 23 April order for £600 plus VAT and the later £1,000 inclusive figure reported in Miss E’s 26 May correspondence. What consideration was given to her request for the underlying breakdown?
FUND-07 / Paul Mitchell
What justified joinder and the scope of the amended case?
The 2 September 2025 written order joined Mr J and required an amended case against him. What grounds, alleged conduct and ownership evidence supported that decision, and how was the permitted scope explained? Address the family’s contention that the oral explanation was narrower than the later claims, without treating their selected hearing extracts as the complete transcript.
FUND-08 / Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
Who checked the costs presentation and the admitted grading error?
Who verified the schedules, client liability, grade and rates before costs were sought? Explain the Grade A entry acknowledged on 18 May 2026, the proposed Grade B rate and the offered reduction. Identify any correction communicated to the court and the resulting assessment.
FUND-09 / Solicitors Regulation Authority
Will the regulator examine the actual financial representations?
Will the SRA assess the dated costs representations, the refusal correspondence, the admitted grading error and the June 2025 enforcement-and-joinder letter against its rules on misleading conduct, properly arguable assertions and unfair advantage? Identify what evidence is needed and which concerns fall within its remit, separately from an appeal against a costs decision.
Five direct questions / Publisher management
British Dealer News / Mayo Media: which company, whose money, what records?
Miss E is being asked to bear legal costs. She is entitled to challenge the basis on which those costs are claimed. Mr J’s reported account of the 22 May 2026 hearing raises a specific question for the publisher’s management: did its business have any part in the payment arrangement described?
MEDIA-01 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Name the publisher. Confirm Mark John Mayo’s role.
Which registered company publishes British Dealer News? Give its full legal name and company number, explain its relationship to Mayo Media 2015 Ltd (09412563), and confirm Mark John Mayo’s role in the publishing business.
MEDIA-02 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Did the business handle any of the litigation costs?
Has the publishing company paid, advanced, reimbursed or processed any legal expenses concerning Mark John Mayo’s litigation against Miss E or Mr J? If so, identify the entity, relevant dates and invoices, and distinguish money supplied by Mayo from funds provided by the company.
MEDIA-03 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
If payments occurred, who authorised them—and who bore the liability?
If any such payments occurred, who authorised the arrangement, who was the legal-services client and who was liable for the invoices? Explain whether the payments were company expenditure, a loan, reimbursement or the handling of money supplied by Mayo, and identify the supporting records.
MEDIA-04 / Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Does the company’s record support the payment account and VAT treatment?
Mr J reports that Mayo told the court on 22 May 2026 that he paid a company which then paid his legal expenses. Does that account concern your business? If so, identify the records that confirm or correct it, any relevant VAT treatment, and any information your company supplied for the costs claim against Miss E.
MEDIA-05 / Mark John Mayo and Mayo Media — British Dealer News publisher management
Personal legal fees: what was claimed for tax—and what was claimed from Miss E?
Were any legal expenses concerning Mark John Mayo’s personal property litigation deducted when calculating a company’s taxable profits? Was any associated VAT reclaimed or recoverable, and by which entity? If so, identify the company, expenditure and basis for that treatment, including whether the payments were recorded as remuneration, a director’s loan, reimbursement or another arrangement. Identify the relevant accounting and reporting records, and explain how that treatment reconciles with the reported hearing account and costs claimed from Miss E.
Published on 2 October 2026 for follow-up; not yet sent by this publication. A response should identify the question number and supporting record, or state clearly that the business had no involvement.
Publisher identity and Companies House sources · Hearing account and full documentary context · The costs and VAT challenge