In The King (on the application of Malik) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police & Anor

1. The Litigation Fact

The Second Defendant, the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (“TVP”), has instructed Kennedys Law LLP (OC353214) to act on its behalf in these proceedings.

2. The Revealed Character of the Opposing Firm

As a matter of public record at Companies House, Kennedys Law LLP has filed a statement that it knows or has reasonable cause to believe “there is no registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity” in relation to it.

• In effect, the firm declares itself to be without ultimate owners or controllers.
• For all practical purposes, it is an “ownerless” entity.

3. The Inescapable Conflict and Procedural Unfairness

This creates a profound procedural anomaly:

• The Claimant, a living man, is fully identifiable, locatable, and accountable.
• The Defendant’s legal representative operates from behind a corporate veil that claims to have no accountable principals.

This is not parity of arms. It is structural imbalance: the state litigates through a vehicle designed to dissipate ultimate responsibility.

4. The Direct Link to Conduct in the Case

This structural opacity is not theoretical; it manifests in conduct already documented in the Phoenix Archive:

• Log #276: Demonstrates Kennedys’ entanglement with other state contractors (e.g., Serco), evidencing a closed ecosystem insulated from scrutiny.
• Log #457: Records obfuscation in handling FOIA and data requests, mirroring the firm’s corporate opacity.

The “ownerless” structure is the architecture that enables and protects such conduct.

5. The Overarching Public Law Point

The Court must now confront a critical question:

Is it lawful, proper, or consistent with the interests of justice for a public police force to expend taxpayer funds on a law firm that, by its own declaration, is an unaccountable, “ownerless” entity?