Woman in divorce cash battle with ex-husband loses anonymity bid
A divorcee embroiled in a legal fight over money with her ex-husband has failed to persuade senior judges to bar journalists from revealing her identity.
The dispute between Tina Norman and her ex-husband Robert Norman has already been considered by a family court judge and Court of Appeal judges are analysing the latest stage at a hearing in London.
Ms Norman said her financial affairs were "private business" - and argued that there was no public interest in her identity being revealed.
But three appeal judges on Thursday refused to impose an identity ban - after analysing the issue at a Court of Appeal hearing in London.
Judges said journalists could name Ms Norman and her ex-husband in reports of the case.
They said they would outline the reasoning behind their decision at a later date.
Editors at a number of media organisations had objected to Ms Norman's application - and said the principle of open justice should prevail.
Judges have heard that the pair reached a cash agreement several years ago after separating.
Ms Norman said she has since discovered that he had more money than she realised and she has made allegations of ''misrepresentation or fraud'' - and is demanding a bigger payout.
Barrister Matthew Waszak, who represented Ms Norman, said a bar on naming her would protect her rights to private and family life.
"There would be little or no public interest in the identities of the parties ... being identified," he told judges.
"The press can still report the substantive issues in this case without people knowing names."
He argued that Ms Norman's personal affairs should not be "laid bare" in national newspapers.
Mr Norman was "neutral" about the identity issues.
Barrister Adam Wolanski, who represented editors from the Times, Mail, Telegraph and Sun newspapers, plus Sky bosses, said Ms Norman's private and family life was not at the centre of the case.
He said appeal judges were analysing the Norman case at a public hearing - and open justice was a fundamental principle of the British judicial system.
He said it was important that people were told what was happening in courts.
He said it was in the public interest for the names of people involved in court hearings to be reported because reports without names generated less public interest.
And he said judges should be "vigilant" before making orders which were exceptions to the principle of open justice.