Sara Chalk -v- West Sussex County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtChancellor of the High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000618

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

11 February 2026

Before:
The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
SARA CHALK

-v-

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

and

(1) POLISH EMBASSY
(2) GRK
(3) ARKADUISZ KAZMIETSKI
(Interested Parties)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review, urgent consideration, directions and interim relief;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. This claim, issued on 10 February 2026, has been given urgent consideration.
  2. This claim is to be consolidated with claim AC-2026-LON-000529, which was issued on 5 February 2026.
  3. The anonymity order for the child GRK, made by Lang J. in the order of 5 February 2026, applies to GRK in this claim also.
  4. No order on the application for interim relief in this claim.
  5. The Defendant shall file an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, including a response to the application for interim relief, no more than 7 days after the date of service of the claim form and supporting documents.
  6. Any Reply from the Claimant must be filed and served no more than 5 days after service of documents by the Defendant pursuant to paragraph 5 above.
  7. The Claimant’s applications in this claim shall be considered by a Judge on the papers, at the same time as the applications in claim 2026-LON-000529 are considered.
  8. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  9. Costs reserved

Reasons

  1. GRK was granted an anonymity order in the order of 5 February 2026 because he is a child. I do not consider that anonymity orders for the parents are justified, given the principle of open justice. The Claimant has not applied for anonymity orders.
  2. The two claims have been consolidated because they arise out of the same issue, namely, the Claimant’s rights under the interim care order that has been made in respect of GRK. If the Claimant wishes to make any further applications to the Court concerning GRK, she should not file a fresh claim for judicial review. Instead, she should make a further application in the existing two claims.
  3. There is a threshold question to be determined, namely, whether the Administrative Court should be entertaining a judicial review of matters which are currently the subject of ongoing Family Court proceedings with a care order in place. The Claimant states in her grounds that a Family Court judge expressly directed that both parents are to be included in education, health and welfare matters, and she claims that direction has been ignored. Arguably, the Claimant’s concerns that she is being excluded, in particular in regard to meetings about the Personal Education Plan, should be raised in the Family Court. The Defendant is asked to address this issue, among others.