A litigant who unsuccessfully applied to make an anonymous statement in open court cannot claim anonymity for the application itself, the High Court has ruled. In his latest ruling on the treatment of requests for anonymity in civil actions, The Honourable Mr Justice Warby, presiding judge in the media and communications list, stressed that the default position should always be open justice. 

The application in SWS v Department for Work and Pensions was described by Warby as a 'sub plot about anonymity' in a case involving an action brought against the Department for Work and Pensions over the misuse of private information. In a Part 36 settlement, the department apologised for damage and distress caused after information about the medical condition of SWS, a man in his 60s, was revealed to his employer during the course of an investigation into a claim for disability living allowance. The investigation found nothing untoward about the claim. 

As part of the settlement, SWS requested a statement in open court to inhibit any further dissemination of his health data. However he said the statement must be anonymous if it were not to undermine the point of his action. That application was dismissed by Mr Justice Warby who ruled in July that 'the derogation from justice' which anonymisation would involve was not necessary or proportionate. 

In the latest ruling, Warby considered arguments about whether the public interest in identifying SWS was sufficient to justify curtailing his article 8 rights to private and family life. He noted that: 'Open justice is always the starting point; derogations can only be justified to the extent that they are necessary', and that the burden of justifying them lies with the applicant. While SWS's fears about the impact of identification were 'heartfelt', they were also 'speculative and overstated'. 

He ruled that an interim anonymity order would be removed 21 days after the judgment unless SWS applies to the Court of Appeal. 

SWS's solicitor, Max Campbell of London media and litigation firm Brett Wilson LLP, said: 'Our client is naturally disappointed by the judgment. He is still considering whether or not to pursue an appeal.'  

Ian Helme, instructed by Brett Wilson LLP, appeared for SWS; Aiden Eardley, instructed by the Government Legal Department, for the DWP.