An unnamed celebrity faces a deadline of Monday afternoon to lodge an appeal after the High Court refused his bid to stop two news organisations publishing allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the man's application for an injunction against Independent Television News (ITN), which produces news programmes for ITV, Channel 4, Good Morning Britain and Channel 5, and Guardian News and Media (GNM), publisher of The Guardian. The case is known as PPT v Independent Television News Ltd and Guardian News and Media Ltd, with the judgment cited as [2026] EWHC 2818 (KB).

Lawyers for the media organisations told the High Court in London that the allegations they want to report involve the man's alleged "abuse of power and status" to contact young women and try to engage in "inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities". The allegations also include what the court described as "potential criminal activity". The man denies the claims.

The man sought the injunction because of a risk that he would take his own life if the allegations were published, after two previous suicide attempts. He is currently detained under the Mental Health Act. His lawyers argued that his psychiatric state required the court to intervene to prevent publication permanently, or at least pending treatment and a future reassessment.

Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that an injunction would be an "exceptionally serious interference" with freedom of expression, and dismissed the claim. In his 52-page judgment, he said the evidence did not "establish that suicide is inevitable", and that granting the injunction would not treat the man's psychiatric condition or eliminate his elevated risk.

The judge accepted that publication would cause the man acute and potentially prolonged mental suffering, and that the risk to his life was real. But he found that the hospital and health staff caring for him had "assumed responsibility" for his immediate safety and could provide significant protection, which he said "materially reduces the likelihood of suicide".

The court also noted that the relief sought would have been of uncertain and potentially indefinite duration, because the medical evidence did not identify a point at which publication would become safe merely through the passage of time.

The judge stressed that the court had not determined whether any of the allegations were true. He said: "The court did not determine whether the allegations, or any of them, were true, and the dismissal of the claim does not amount to approval of any publication the defendants may decide to make."

Sara Mansoori KC, for the man, asked the judge to allow the case to be considered by the Court of Appeal, telling the court her client is "in a highly vulnerable position". Mr Justice Nicklin granted permission to appeal, and said that any notice of appeal or requests for further time would need to be provided to the Court of Appeal by Monday afternoon.

The man cannot yet be named, and the temporary injunction protecting his anonymity remains in place while he decides whether to appeal. Mr Justice Nicklin said it would not be up to a court to name the man, adding: "The court does not itself put into the public domain the material which the claimant sought to restrain. It remains the choice of the defendants what, when and how they publish."

Samaritans can be contacted for free, day or night, 365 days a year, on 116 123, or at samaritans.org.