BBC: An injunction banning the media in England and Wales from reporting the identity of a married celebrity who allegedly took part in a threesome has been lifted.
Court of Appeal judges accepted the Sun On Sunday’s bid to lift the injunction, but said the celebrity could still not be named pending a possible appeal.
The judges said the allegations had now been widely reported abroad and online.
They gave the man time to apply to take the case to the UK Supreme Court.
In the ruling, they said there must be no publication leading to disclosure of the celebrity’s identity before 13:00 BST on Wednesday.
The celebrity – who has young children and whose spouse is also well-known – has until 10:00 BST on Tuesday to submit arguments to the Supreme Court.
It will then decide whether to hear the case – and therefore extend the reporting ban – or to throw it out, leading to the order being being lifted.
BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the judgement, if it stands, would “effectively mark the end of the celebrity privacy injunction”.
Legal landscape ‘changed’
The man – known in court as PJS – took legal action earlier this year after the Sunday tabloid newspaper tried to publish allegations about him.
Monday’s judgement said the celebrity had “occasional sexual encounters” with another person – referred to in court as AB – starting in 2009.
According to the judgement, they had a text message exchange in December 2011 in which they discussed a “three-way”.
“Accordingly the three met for a three-way sexual encounter, which they duly carried out”, the ruling stated.
In January, the two other parties approached the Sun On Sunday with the story.
Two Court of Appeal judges later imposed the injunction, which prevented PJS being named in England and Wales.
However, lawyers for News Group Newspapers – publishers of the Sun On Sunday – asked judges to lift the ban.
They said stories had been published in the US, Scotland and elsewhere – where the injunction does not apply.
Lord Justice Jackson said he had to balance PJS’s right to privacy against the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression.
He ruled on Monday that details about the allegations were now “so widespread” that confidentiality had “probably been lost”.
“Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred,” Lord Justice Jackson said.
“The court should not make orders which are ineffective.”
