Blackmailed star wins injunction over his identity
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.A television personality who asserts that he was the subject of a blackmail attempt over "intimate" photographs taken of him in private has won an injunction that will mean his identity will never be divulged.
Mr Justice Eady granted the injunction just one day after appeal judges decreed that another celebrity that is alleged to have had an affair with a colleague should remain anonymous to protect his children.
The man in the more recent case, known as a "household name", applied for the order to protect his human right to privacy in what the judge described as a "a straightforward and blatant case of blackmail".
The ruling is believed to be the first time a permanent gagging injunction has been used in a privacy case to conceal the sexual secret of a star.
Mr Justice Eady granted the gagging order even though there will be no trial after an out-of-court settlement with a woman, known only as BJM, and her partner (CJM), from publishing confidential information. The ruling stated that the woman, whose profession cannot be reported, "owed a duty of confidence" to the celebrity.
It is thought that, through her partner, the woman was negotiating a financial deal to sell intimate photographs and other information when she owed the claimant a duty of confidence, the court heard.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments