A bid to impose a series of reporting restrictions at an industrial tribunal has been successfully blocked by The Northern Echo.

Editor Peter Barron said they would have been “draconian restrictions” which would have made the reporting of the case impossible.

Solicitors suggested anonymity should apply to a man at the centre of the hearing, who was looking for compensation for unfair dismissal, and almost everyone else connected with the case.

The hearing was held to decide the level of compensation for a gymnastics coach who had won his case for unfair dismissal against Newcastle City Council a year earlier.

The unfair dismissal case had followed Paul Wells’ acquittal at crown court where he had been charged with indecently assaulting six youngsters he had trained.

Solicitors acting for both Mr Wells and the city council had applied for a restricted reporting order until the end of the case, at the suggestion of the tribunal panel, as the case involved sexual misconduct.

A female complainant of rape already had anonymity under the Sexual Offences Act, but the tribunal wanted to ban identification of all witnesses giving evidence, child complainants, athletes, parents of athletes and anyone mentioned who worked at or who used the sports centre involved.

They also wanted to ban anything to do with trampolining, coaching or the name of the sports centre.

Solicitors were told they could draw up a list of people to be referred to as “Case A”, “Case B”, and so on.

But alarmed at the way it would seriously hamper reporting of the case – by banning the name of almost everyone involved – regional chief reporter Lindsay Jennings rang her editor.

While the solicitors were drawing up their A, B, C list, Northern Echo editor Peter Barron wrote a letter to the tribunal chairwoman arguing the case was high profile, that Mr Wells’ name was already in the public domain, and that council tax payers had a right to know where their money – any compensation – was being spent.

The letter was faxed to the tribunal offices and was with the panel and both parties before the end of lunch.The matter was debated throughout the afternoon session.

At one point it was suggested by the solicitors that the whole hearing could take place in private stating that witnesses and the other named parties had a right to privacy under the Human Rights Act.

The next morning the tribunal rejected the solicitors’ attempts to ban the names of almost everyone connected with the case and ruled that the order would apply to child complainants and seven child witnesses only.

The remainder of the case was reported in full but a decision on compensation is still awaited.

Peter Barron said: “I don’t think I have ever heard of a case in which solicitors were given carte blanche to make a list of anyone they didn’t want to be identified – Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

“This was already a case which was firmly established in the public domain through the original court case and subsequent industrial tribunal. There was no reason whatsoever to suggest such draconian restrictions which would have made the reporting of the case impossible.

“Thankfully, they were made to see sense but this case should act as a reminder to newspapers that the open reporting of industrial tribunals – as well as courts – is under threat.”