The claimant in A v Burke and Hare had worked in Edinburgh and London and sought £1,846 for holiday pay in consequence of her work as a stripper.

She said, however, that she may abandon the case if she is not granted a general anonymity order. The claimant submitted such an order was necessary for her right to respect for a private and family life.

The Honourable Lord Summers, however, held that the principle of open justice required that her name be published and that her former occupation alone did not justify an order. It was not possible to identify where serious harm might occur if her name were published, he ruled.

He added: “The claimant submits that if an anonymity order is not pronounced she will abandon her claim. She submits that if the EAT forces her into this position it will have prevented her from obtaining access to justice. The law does not exist to provide access to justice whatever the cost. The principle of open justice represents a commitment to transparency that is designed for the greater good. It may not always serve the interests of the individual.”

At first instance, the judge said she should have foreseen that working as a stripper might harm her career prospects. On appeal, she argued her right to privacy survived her choice of career and that the tribunal would impede her right to access to justice if it refused her wish.

Lord Summers said the stigmatisation was insufficient to outweigh the principle of open justice. The judgment was published without her name, on the understanding she intended to drop the claim.

The claim, however, has not yet been withdrawn.