Celebrity injunction: Judges consider whether decision to lift privacy order can be taken to Supreme Court
Appeal court judges ruled the privacy order should be lifted on Monday
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Judges are now considering whether a celebrity can take the decision to lift an injunction preventing a tabloid from publishing details of his alleged “extra-marital activities” to the Supreme Court.
The man, named in court documents as PJS, lost the latest round of his legal battle on Monday when three judges at London's Court of Appeal ruled that the privacy order protecting him from being named should be lifted.
Lawyers for the Sun on Sunday asked the court to lift the injunction barring them from publishing the story because the man - who is described as being in the entertainment business and in a relationship with someone who is also a well-known individual in the same business - has been named by publications in the US, Scotland and other countries. The injunction only applies in England and Wales.
Lord Justice Jackson, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon ruled in the newspaper's favour on Monday. Lord Justice Jackson said “knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost,” meaning the harm the injunction was designed to counter had already likely taken place.
PJS can still not be named until his appeal has been heard. The man is now asking to take his case to the Supreme Court.
Desmond Browne QC, representing PJS, said the Court of Appeal's decision could lead to rule of the press“ as opposed to ”rule of the law“ and signal the death of the "celebrity privacy injunction".
A Supreme Court spokeswoman told the Press Association justices were considering his application. She said: "A decision whether to grant, or refuse, permission is expected to be made by the end of the day."
Additional reporting by PA