A trainee reporter who took on four barristers has won a key legal victory.

Claire Truscott (pictured), who works at The Argus in Brighton, persuaded magistrates that newspapers should not have to bear the cost of legal challenges to court orders restricting reporting.

When The Argus was unable to overturn a Section 39 order banning the identification of children who were the subject of anti-social behaviour orders, barristers acting for the defendants applied for a ruling to be made ordering the newspaper to pay costs.

But Lewes Magistrates' Court judged it "entirely proper" for The Argus to mount the challenge as the paper had not been present at the court hearing in which restrictions were put in place.

A win for the lawyers would have cost the newspaper thousands of pounds and set a worrying precedent which would have had implications for newspapers across the country deciding whether to challenge court orders.

Claire, (27), argued that asking newspapers to pay costs in such cases would make challenging unfair court orders impossible.

She said: "I think they were trying it on a bit really. Newspapers challenge reporting restrictions all the time and the law encourages us to do so.

"No paper has the resources to attend every court session so this is the only recourse we have to overturn a publishing ban."

In court she quoted sections of the European Human Rights Act and Judicial Studies Board Guidance notes.

News editor Melanie Dowding said: "Claire single-handedly took on four experienced lawyers and although the order was not lifted, her success in arguing against an award of costs against us which was an extremely important decision."

Assistant news editor Lee Gibbs added: "She put up a very good fight. Considering this was the first time she had ever worked in a court of law, this was very impressive."

Simon Westrop, Newquest head of legal, said: "Claire acted above and beyond the call of duty. She was faced with four sets of barristers and held her own against their best legal shots.

"Though we lost the application, the magistrates confirmed that The Argus had been right to make it.

"Alarmingly – and very unusually – those four barristers asked for a costs order against us. The courts would seem to have discretion to award costs in such a situation but it is almost unheard of.

"After a hurried telephone briefing, Claire went back to argue why the media should not have to face costs when making legitimate representations against reporting restrictions.

"She impressed the magistrates with her advocacy and they made no costs order."

The Argus had attempted to lift reporting restrictions in a case involving four boys who had already been named in the paper when they were given interim ASBOs.

At a later court hearing, which The Argus did not attend, a Section 39 order was put in place, despite the earlier press coverage.

Claire argued that their identities were already in the public domain and that as identification was a key aspect of awarding ASBOs, the restrictions should be lifted.

Two of the boys given the interim ASBOs had approached Claire through an agency working with them, to request an interview about how they had changed their behaviour.

But when the trainee reporter began to write their story, she was informed of the Section 39 order. She immediately applied to have the order overturned but lawyers representing the boys objected.

She faced four barristers at Lewes Magistrates Court to make her case in a three-hour hearing.

She said: "They threw some pretty low blows which I was not used to but I was gobsmacked when they mentioned costs.

"In the end, it looks like we can probably publish after the boys' final hearing and we will not be saddled with a legal bill so I am hugely relieved and pleased."

Magistrates decided the order should be upheld until the full ASBO hearing because of the interim nature of the ASBO in place and the fact that its existence had already been communicated to the boys' local community.