Why self-forward the disputed email—and what verifies it?

The question · editorial wording

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.

Current question directed to: Luke Cornwell / Seldons Solicitors · Bideford, Devon, United Kingdom

Proposed recipients

Luke Cornwell · Seldons Solicitors

Date sent by this publication

Not sent

Sending of a new request by this publication

Not recorded; this is the draft reporting register.

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.

What the record answers

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.

The point still requiring clarification

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. No live “days unanswered” count is used.

The connected questions

The agreement, the plan’s reported court use and the email’s authenticity form one documentary chain. These questions test the links in that chain.

• BH68-03 · Which wayleaves cover BH68?
• BH68-04 · Why rely on this plan—and where is the agreement?
• BH68-05 · Is the disputed email exchange authentic?

Where this question comes from

Nick Shackson, National Grid and the BH68 plan → Read the originating article

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.

Mark John Mayo v Miss E / L00BP152

Other parties mentioned

These connections provide context; they do not establish delivery of this question to every named party.