A judge has lifted reporting restrictions on the NHS Trust that was at odds with a late Christian teenager over ending life-preserving treatment.

Sudiksha Thirumalesh, 19, died from a rare genetic condition on 12 September while fighting for treatment to continue. Her doctors argued that she was "actively dying" and that end of life care should commence.

Strict reporting restrictions were imposed by the courts during the ensuing legal battle that prevented Thirumalesh, the NHS Trust, hospital and clinicians from being named.

Last week, the court lifted the gagging order on Thirumalesh's identity, allowing her to be named in media reports for the first time. Before then, she could only be referred to by her initials, 'ST'.

Her family had fought strongly for the right to name her, claiming that it had prevented them from being able to fundraise for her to go abroad for clinical trials.

On Friday, Mr Justice Robert Peel ruled that University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust can now also be named. 

However, he ruled that the hospital and clinicians involved cannot be named before the expiry of an 8-week 'cooling' period.

Responding to the judgment, Sudiksha's father, Thirumalesh Chellamal Hemachandran, said: "We have been unfairly gagged by these reporting restrictions for over six months. If not for those restrictions, our daughter might well still be alive.

"We are very disappointed that, even now, the court has decided to continue to gag us for another eight weeks to keep the identity of the hospital and the clinicians secret.

"We cannot even name the people who, in our darkest hour, have made it worse for Sudiksha and the whole family by taking us to court and securing a gagging order against us."

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), which is supporting the family, said: "Justice is done in the light. Open justice ensures the best outcomes for all.

"The public is rightly concerned to know the truth about Sudiksha's disturbing case and death.

"The attempt to justify those restrictions by fears of harassment or violence against the clinicians does not hold water. There is no evidence of such a risk in cases of this kind - certainly not in this case."

The family and CLC are still working with lawyers to overturn an earlier ruling that Thirumalesh did not have the capacity to make decisions about her treatment.