A judge has upheld press freedom to identify a defendant in civil proceedings and warned against giving litigants anonymity unless evidence is produced to show it is strictly necessary.

Mr Justice Tugendhat stressed the importance of open justice when he allowed the media to name Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust as the defendant in a multi-million-pound negligence claim brought on behalf of a boy who was left severely disabled after a health visitor failed to refer him to hospital when he was a few weeks old.

Tugendhat J. cited an ‘open justice’ ruling by the Supreme Court which supports media freedom to identify litigants rather than having resort to an ‘alphabet soup’ of initials in place of parties’ real names.

The boy’s mother had applied for an order prohibiting the identity of both her son (the claimant) and the hospital Trust being disclosed.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the Trust adopted a neutral stance and did not oppose her request or argue that the Trust should be named in reports.

But the judge was having none of it. He said the public had an interest in knowing which publicly-funded institutions were facing court claims, and hospitals’ identities should not be kept secret unless a clear need was established, supported by evidence.

He said: “Defendants commonly are – and in this case the defendant is – a public body and the public have an interest in knowing what hospital Trusts are facing or settling claims. Obviously, that interest does not extend to many details. But that a hospital Trust should not be named when a settlement of this kind is approved is a matter which is of concern in itself.

“There are occasions when it will be necessary that it should not be named, but those occasions, it is to be hoped, will be rare.”

The judge accepted that the boy’s own identity should not be disclosed. However, following representations from James Brewster, editor of news agency Strand News, he said the Trust should not have anonymity.

He referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in the case of Guardian News and Media Ltd & Others, Re HM Treasury v Ahmed & Others [2010], in which Lord Rodger said: “What’s in a name? ‘A lot’, the press would answer.

“This is because stories about particular individuals are simply much more attractive to readers than stories about unidentified people. It is just human nature.”

After reviewing case law in which judges had refused to grant anonymity, Lord Rodger added: “The judges are recognising that editors know best how to present material in a way that will interest the readers of their particular publication and so help them to absorb the information.

“A requirement to report it in some austere, abstract form, devoid of much of its human interest, could well mean that the report would not be read and the information would not be passed on. Ultimately, such an approach could threaten the viability of newspapers and magazines, which can only inform the public if they attract enough readers and make enough money to survive.”

In an earlier case, In Re S [2005], Lord Steyn made the following remarks about the importance of publishing names in criminal cases: “From a newspaper’s point of view a report of a sensational trial without revealing the identity of the defendant would be a very much disembodied trial…

“Certainly readers will be less interested and editors will act accordingly. Informed debate about criminal justice will suffer,” he said.

This line of cases, flagged up by Tugendhat J., provides useful ammunition for court reporters faced with applications for anonymity orders and other reporting restrictions.

Courts should require the party making the application to show the reporting restriction is strictly necessary, with evidence. There is a public interest in openly naming publicly-funded institutions involved in court proceedings. There is also a general public interest, highlighted by the Supreme Court, in the media being free to publish names to boost human interest in news copy and ensure information is sufficiently revelatory and readable to be read and passed on.