1. Introduction 

1.1 Subject and scope

This disclosure concerns DAC Beachcroft conduct and CNBC (Civil National Business Centre) administrative conduct in Claim No. M05ZA443, evidenced by two emails that, when read together, establish a time-locked procedural sequence capable of producing adverse procedural consequence by (a) closing the court-admin channel and (b) escalating opponent service pressure.

This is a record-integrity and timing disclosure. It is not dependent on any attachment contents. It is anchored to metadata and wording visible on the face of the emails.

1.2 The two emails and why they matter

Email A (DAC Beachcroft): An email sent by DAC Beachcroft (Anisa Roles) at 09:12 on 19 January 2026 within the subject chain referencing Claim No. M05ZA443. The email states that DAC are providing “letter correspondence and the Court Order dated 19 November 2025” and that they “look forward to receiving your response.” The chain text also references service of the Defendant’s Skeleton Argument “by way of service.” This disclosure records the service assertion, the response-demand posture, and the timing metadata visible on the face of the email. No attachment contents are relied upon.

Email B (CNBC Case Progression): An email sent from Case Progression CNBC at 21:15 on 20 January 2026 stating that the claim has been transferred to the County Court at Reading, that CNBC can take no further action and cannot provide updates, and directing correspondence to the receiving court.

Materiality: Taken together, the two emails constitute a single procedural sequence. Within a narrow time window, a consequential court-admin transfer/closure communication is issued out of hours, while the Defendant solicitor advances a service posture and response expectation by email. The combined effect is administrative fragmentation and heightened procedural prejudice risk arising from timing, channel asymmetry, and record auditability.

1.3 Temporal sequencing 

The time distance between the two events, as shown on the emails, is:

• From DAC email (19 Jan 2026 09:12) to CNBC transfer email (20 Jan 2026 21:15) 
  = 36 hours 03 minutes.

The CNBC message is out-of-hours (21:15). The disclosure position is that out-of-hours dispatch of a transfer/closure message is not a neutral detail: it is a temporal flag because it can operate as a procedural choke-point (no same-day corrective action possible, no immediate administrative remedy, and increased risk that the receiving court record proceeds on incomplete or contested file status).

1.4 Latency flag 

The DAC email asserts circulation/service of a Court Order dated 19 November 2025 on 19 January 2026. On the face of the timestamps alone, that is a two-month latency marker between the order date and the service attempt within this chain, raising a record-integrity question: why the order is being operationalised at this stage, by solicitor email, in proximity to an out-of-hours transfer notice.

1.5 Background condition 

This sequence sits within an already contested administrative posture on the file (as reflected within the visible chain text in your screenshots): questions over what has been processed, what has been listed, and what is actually on the court record at the point of transfer. The disclosure therefore treats the two emails not as routine correspondence but as an integrity event: a compressed sequence that can be used to manufacture “notice”, “default”, or “failure to respond/attend” narratives where the administrative channel is simultaneously obstructed.

1.6 Reliance statement 

This disclosure relies on:

• the sender identity, timestamps, subject line, and visible wording in the two emails;
• the sequencing and computed interval between them;
• the stated transfer destination (Reading County Court);
• the stated order date (19 November 2025) and the timing of DAC’s service assertion (19 January 2026).

This disclosure does not rely on any attachment contents, and makes no claim as to what any attachment contains beyond what the email text asserts.

2. Evidence & Chronology

2.1 Exhibits Register

2.2 Temporal Delta

2.3 Chronology

Chronology and channel asymmetry in Claim No. M05ZA443. DAC Beachcroft asserts service and presses for response (EX-DAC-01, 19 Jan 2026 09:12), followed 36h 03m later by an out-of-hours CNBC transfer notice to Reading stating no further action is possible (EX-CNBC-01, 20 Jan 2026 21:15), closing the court/admin channel while adversarial pressure remains active.

2.4 Temporal Flags

3. Timing Trap Mechanism

3.1 Sequence Diagram

3.1 Visual Procedural Timeline — The 36-Hour Asymmetry

3.2 Channel Asymmetry Visualization

★ Out-of-hours dispatch indicator: The CNBC communication was issued at 21:15, outside business hours (typically 09:00–17:00), creating a temporal barrier to immediate administrative remedy.

3.2 Mechanism Table

3.3 Prejudice Pathways

3.4 Integrity Issue Statement

4 Legal Breaches 

Breach 1

Out-of-hours court-admin transfer notice (21:15) creating procedural prejudice risk.

This invokes CPR Part 6 and Practice Direction 6A (service/deemed service timing and business day logic), and Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998 (effective participation / equality of arms).

Breach 2

CNBC “no action / no updates” channel closure at the point notice is received, creating an administrative vacuum.

This invokes CPR Part 30 and the Practice Direction to Part 30 (transfer and administrative handling), and Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998 (effective access to process).

Breach 3

Transfer decision opacity: no stated decision time, authorisation route, or reason for transfer within the notice.

This invokes CPR Part 30 and the Practice Direction to Part 30 (transfer rationale and record trail) and common law procedural fairness / auditability principles.

Breach 4

Transfer-notification latency risk: decision-time unknown; only notification-time is shown, preventing scrutiny of sequencing.

This invokes CPR Part 30 / PD30 (transfer record integrity) and common law natural justice (ability to challenge administrative steps).

Breach 5

File-integrity risk at handoff: the transfer notice provides no inventory of what documents were on the file when transferred.

This invokes CPR Part 30 / PD30 (transfer and case file integrity) and common law open justice / record integrity principles.

Breach 6

Receiving-court activation ambiguity: no confirmation of the time Reading received and activated the file, leaving a procedural gap.

This invokes CPR Part 30 / PD30 and Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998 (effective participation).

Breach 7

Defendant “service” asserted by email while the court-admin channel is simultaneously closed, creating an asymmetric pressure condition.

This invokes CPR Part 6 / PD6A (service validity/deemed service), and CPR Part 3 (case management powers that can convert timing into sanctions).

Breach 8

Service-pathway substitution risk: the Defendant relies on email assertion of service without verified court-file service trail.

This invokes CPR Part 6 / PD6A (service requirements) and Practice Direction 5B (email filing/communication framework).

Breach 9

Order handling irregularity risk: a court order dated 19 November 2025 is operationalised via Defendant email on 19 January 2026 (latency marker).

This invokes CPR Part 40 and Practice Direction 40B (orders: drawing up/entry/service) and CPR Part 6 / PD6A (service of orders where relevant).

Breach 10

Absence of proof of court service of the 19 November 2025 order within the sequence relied upon, enabling procedural ambush.

This invokes CPR Part 40 / PD40B (order service/record) and Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998 (notice and fair hearing).

Breach 11

Tight coupling of Defendant escalation and court-admin closure within 36 hours creates an apparent timing trap.

This invokes common law natural justice (no ambush), and Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998 (equality of arms).

Breach 12

Procedural prejudice amplification: out-of-hours closure increases risk of “non-response/default” narratives while corrective action is practically blocked.

This invokes CPR Part 3 (sanctions/case management), CPR Part 6 / PD6A (deemed notice arguments), and Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Breach 13

Application-handling integrity risk on the file (where ‘without a hearing’ disposal is in play), interacting with transfer/closure and opponent service.

This invokes CPR Part 23 and Practice Direction 23A (applications, including without-hearing disposal), and CPR Part 3 (case management sequencing).

Breach 14

Record-integrity breach risk: the sequence evidences a procedural environment where administrative acts are not transparently auditable while adversarial steps proceed.

This invokes common law procedural fairness / open justice, CPR Part 30 / PD30 (transfer audit trail), and Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Breach 15.

The CNBC Case Progression transfer email is not signed by any named officer and is issued from a generic mailbox while using first-person wording (“I/we”), notwithstanding that other court communications in the same matter are attributable to named administrative officers. This engages auditability and record-integrity requirements for consequential procedural status communications.

This invokes CPR Part 30 and the Practice Direction to Part 30. It invokes common law procedural fairness and record-integrity principles. It invokes Article 6 ECHR via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Legal Frameworks 

1) Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Practice Directions

I. CPR Part 6 + Practice Direction 6A

CPR Part 6 + PD 6A

Service and deemed service. Business day and cut-off timing mechanics.

Analysis:

Engaged where out-of-hours transmission and timing are capable of generating deemed notice arguments and procedural prejudice.

II. CPR Part 23 + Practice Direction 23A

CPR Part 23 + PD 23A

Applications. Disposal without a hearing. Notice/service obligations around application material and outcomes.

Analysis:

Engaged where application handling and notice/service regularity determine whether process is procedurally fair and auditable.

III. CPR Part 30 + Practice Direction 30

CPR Part 30 + PD 30

Transfer and venue. Basis and rationale for transfer. Record trail of transfer decision.

Analysis:

Engaged where transfer decisions must be traceable by authority, timing, and rationale to prevent administrative fragmentation.

IV. CPR Part 40 + Practice Direction 40B

CPR Part 40 + PD 40B

Orders. Drawing up, sealing, entry, service. Integrity of order circulation against the court file.

Analysis:

Engaged where reliance on an order requires a transparent record of entry and lawful service pathway.

V. CPR Part 3

CPR Part 3

Case management powers. Sanctions risk. Adverse procedural consequence from sequencing.

Analysis:

Engaged where timing/sequence can be leveraged into sanctions or adverse inferences absent a fair opportunity to correct the record.

VI. CPR Part 39

CPR Part 39

Hearings. Non-attendance consequences.

Analysis:

Engaged where attendance/default inferences are asserted and must be grounded in lawful notice and accessible participation.

2) Common Law / Constitutional Principles (Procedure and Justice)

I. Natural justice (audi alteram partem)

Natural justice (audi alteram partem)

No adverse step without lawful notice and opportunity to be heard.

Analysis:

Engaged where adverse consequence is built from notice defects, timing traps, or administrative closure.

II. Procedural fairness / due process

Procedural fairness / due process

Decisions and orders must be procedurally regular, properly notified, and capable of challenge.

Analysis:

Engaged where administrative acts are opaque or communicated in a way that blocks timely challenge.

III. Open justice / record integrity

Open justice / record integrity

Court process must be auditable; administrative actions must have traceable authority and timing.

Analysis:

Engaged where provenance is unclear (who/when/why), enabling procedural outcomes to be built on an opaque record.

3) Human Rights (UK Domestic Incorporation)

I. Human Rights Act 1998

Human Rights Act 1998

Public authority duty to act compatibly with Convention rights.

Analysis:

Engaged where court administration affects fairness and effective participation.

II. ECHR Article 6

ECHR Article 6

Fair hearing; equality of arms; effective participation; notice/service adequacy.

Analysis:

Engaged where one side can progress procedure while the court-admin channel closes or becomes inaccessible.

4) International (Higher-layer framing)

I. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Article 6 as operative fair-trial standard (via HRA domestically).

Analysis:

Reinforces the fair-trial standard underpinning the domestic compatibility duty.

II. ICCPR Article 14

ICCPR Article 14

Fair trial / equality before courts.

Analysis:

Optional reinforcement layer for systemic procedural integrity framing beyond domestic procedure.

Evidence Table 

Breach Key (B1–B14)

B1 Out-of-hours dispatch

B2 Channel closure / no action

B3 Transfer opacity (reason/authority missing)

B4 Decision-time absent (latency gap)

B5 No file-inventory baseline at transfer

B6 Receiving-court activation ambiguity

B7 Defendant asserts service while admin channel closed

B8 Service pathway substitution risk

B9 Order-date latency marker

B10 No proof of court service of order in sequence

B11 Tight coupling / timing-trap risk

B12 Prejudice amplification (“non-response” narrative risk)

B13 Application process integrity risk (without-hearing context)

B14 Record-integrity risk environment

Conclusion

The two exhibits establish a single procedural sequence in Claim No. M05ZA443: DAC Beachcroft asserting service and advancing reliance on an order, followed within a narrow time window by an out-of-hours CNBC transfer notice that simultaneously closes the originating administrative channel. The combined effect is administrative fragmentation and a heightened risk of procedural prejudice, because the court communication arrives at a time and in a form that limits immediate correction while adversarial steps continue to be pressed. On orthodox principles of civil justice, any adverse procedural consequence predicated on such sequencing is unsafe unless the court record can evidence a complete audit trail for the transfer decision, the file contents at handoff, and the lawful service pathway for any order or document relied upon.