Celebrity injunction: Man behind privacy order will have to wait to hear if legal challenge is successful
Five Supreme Court justices are evaluating the man's case
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 celebrity will have to wait to find out if a privacy junction protecting him from being named by the press will remain in place after Supreme Court justices reserved their decision.
The Sun on Sunday wants to publish details of the man’s alleged “extramarital activities” after an order preventing them from doing so was overturned by the Court of Appeal. His lawyers are now asking Supreme Court justices to make a decision in the case.
Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger said the court would “take time to consider this matter” and justices would give their decision “as soon as we can”.
The injunction remains in place until a decision is reached.
Lawyers for the Sun on Sunday argue the order should be overturned because the man, named as PJS in court documents, and his spouse have been identified in publications outside of England and Wales, where the order is in place.
But Desmond Browne QC, representing PJS, said lifting the injunction would prompt a flood of reports and draw attention to the couple’s children. “It’s hard to see that the children were afforded the primacy of importance to which they are entitled,” he told justices. “That is an issue not just now but for the future when they grow up.”
Discharging the order would have “devastating consequences”, he warned.
“This case has been hailed by some as the death-knell of the privacy injunction," he later added. "We hope that reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.”
Additional reporting by Press Association
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.