Journalists will be able to appear before the Leveson Inquiry to give evidence anonymously, High Court judges have ruled today.An application by Associated Newspapers to prevent such evidence being heard was rejected by Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Sweeney and Mrs Justice Sharp.Toulson said Lord Justice Leveson had made a "positive decision" to receive anonymous evidence from journalists "who wish to conceal their identity because of fear of career blight".He said Leveson would scrutinise carefully what witnesses say about personal and professional circumstances when considering individual applications for anonymity.He said anonymous evidence would leave a gap in the Inquiry if it were prohibited and would leave Leveson "open to the criticism of not having heard the full story".He added: "It also important to recognise that the evidence will be part of a much wider tapestry and that it is open to the claimant and others to present balancing non-anonymous evidence".Legal representatives for Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, were not present as the judgment was handed down.Cathryn McGahey, acting for the inquiry, asked for a limited time of appeal on the ruling.The application to overturn Leveson's ruling was made by Associated Newspapers last week.Mark Warby QC, acting for Associated, argued in court when challenging the ruling that this type evidence would damage the rights and interests of "predominantly" tabloid and mid market titles.Warby argued the ruling was "incomplete and an incompletely reasoned balancing exercise which ignores reputational concerns and gives the superficial appearance of fairness”.The application was supported by the Daily Telegraph, whose editorial legal director wrote the court in support of the application but did not take part in the hearing.Leveson ruled that he would accept anonymous evidence, not naming any individuals or specific newspapers, on November 9 last year.In a statement at the time, Leveson said he had received "a number of submissions" him to reconsider the ruling but "was not prepared to do so".He added: "It is not suggested that I should not receive hearsay evidence and, in one sense, the evidence provided directly to the Inquiry is of greater value because a witness will speak to it and can be probed, albeit only generally, on issues such as credibility".