Enough to find the miscreant
That's why they do it. The press all whined about super-injunctions, but it was entirely their fault. Judges would put on reporting restrictions for perfectly good reasons in cases. So the press would loudly shout enough info that you could just go and look stuff up, then when the info was all over the internet go back to the judge and say, "look guv everyone knows anyway, why can't we publish now?"
Hence the reporting restrictions get more and more onerous.
This is in some ways a similar situation to the right to be forgotten thing. The info on spent convictions has always been around if you needed to search for it specifically. But wasn't generally available to everyone without effort. Similarly there's always a certain number of people with connections in the media/law/politics who know this sort of stuff from gossip. So if you drank with those people, then you also knew lots of juicy gossip/scandal that didn't make the papers for weeks/at all. The internet makes it easy for the press to drop a hint, and people can go off for a quick google and find stuff out.
Where there's public interest, like the Guardian outing Trafigura I'm fine with it. But in this case there's an ongoing court case to decide the very fucking issue - and so it's rather distasteful.
It'll be interesting to see what the judge will do. As business fraud might not count as private life. But I don't see why people shouldn't have a right to have a go at the courts in relative anonymity, and we can all shout how they're a wrong-un if they lose. A bit like giving alleged victims of blackmail anonymity, as otherwise the blackmailer wins even when they lose.