Case No.: KB-2025-003308

Court: High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division

Claimant: :Waseem: Malik

Defendant: Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

1. Note to Master (Top Sheet)

(Keeps tone respectful and frames scope)

This Part 8 claim is not about damages or contested fact. It is a request for the Court’s declaratory recognition of the RCJ-46 Series.

CPR 8.1(2) and CPR 8.2(1) provide the framework. Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union [2009] confirms declaratory relief is itself a recognised cause of action.

Relief sought:

1. A declaration that RCJ-46 Series stands as part of the record.
2. Directions for further management.

The documents are undisputed, originate from official bodies, and evidence systemic absence of regulatory jurisdiction. Recognition ensures the record is complete.

Filed by: :Waseem: Malik – Litigant in Person

2. Counter-Note: Cause of Action under CPR Part 8

(Directly rebuts Drewe’s “no cause of action” threat)

1. Objection: Defendant asserts N208 “does not disclose a cause of action.”
2. Rebuttal:
   • CPR 8.1(2): Part 8 is for questions unlikely to involve factual disputes.
   • CPR 8.2(1): Claim form must state the question to be decided.
   • Rolls-Royce v Unite confirms declaratory relief = cause of action.
3. Conclusion:
   • The N208 discloses a proper cause of action.
   • Defendant’s strike-out threat is unfounded.
   • Court invited to proceed to directions.

3. Draft Order

(Gives the Master an easy route to accept jurisdiction)

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court confirms jurisdiction under CPR Part 8 to determine the Claimant’s request for declaratory relief regarding the RCJ-46 Series.