'Celebrity threesome' injunction: Couple at the centre of gagging order could be named on Thursday

Supreme Court justices will announce their decision this week

London's supreme court (Getty)

A "well-known" celebrity who has taken out a privacy injunction to prevent newspapers reporting his alleged involvement in a three-way sexual encounter could be named on Thursday.

Following a hearing in London last month, five Supreme Court justices reserved their decision and said an injunction would remain in place pending their ruling.

The man, referred to as PJS, has challenged a Court of Appeal decision that an order barring The Sun on Sunday from naming him should be lifted.

News Group Newspapers (NGN) won the first round of the privacy dispute in January when a High Court judge refused to impose an injunction.

PJS then challenged that decision and two Court of Appeal judges ruled in his favour.

But NGN's lawyers then successfully argued at a further hearing before three appeal judges that the ban should go because the man had been named in articles abroad - outside the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales - and his name could be found on the internet.

The ruling in the newspaper's favour by Lord Justice Jackson, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon led to the hearing before the panel of five justices, headed by Supreme Court president, Lord Neuberger.

During April's hearing, PJS's counsel, Desmond Browne QC, said that the discharge of the injunction would have “devastating consequences” for him and his children and lead to a “storm of harassment”.

There was a need to protect the children and that was an issue, not just now but for the future when they grew up.

He said it was hard to see that the Court of Appeal had afforded the children “the primacy of importance ” to which they were entitled.

Where an injunction had been granted to protect the personal privacy of a claimant and his family, the question arose of whether accessibility to information on the internet and social media rendered it effectively pointless and the court effectively powerless.

But an injunction did more than protect the secrecy of information, he said. It also extended to protection from intrusion and harassment.

He said that the English media had embarked on a campaign to ridicule the grant of the injunction with the twin aims of encouraging their readers to find the prohibited information online and put pressure on the court to lift the injunction.

The justices needed to consider the practical ramifications of the Court of Appeal's findings and “whether they are acceptable in a country under the rule of law rather than the press”.

Gavin Millar, QC for NGN, said the position had changed from January when no information about the matter was available to the public.

Since it “took off” on the internet and globally on April 6, all the English mainstream media had reported the story. Its dissemination was not something a court could prevent, he said.

He said it was unlikely, given the information available to the public, that a permanent injunction would be obtained at trial - when NGN would argue that aspects of the story were in the public interest.

As the Court of Appeal said, the interests of the children were not a trump card in this situation, he added.

It was a case about balancing rights. One had to be realistic about the possibility that publicity would occur and steps could be taken to protect the children.

The information was out there on the internet to be seen. That might not be desirable but it was the factual position, he said.

Press Association.