On 3 November 2026, the High Court released a well-publicised judgment in the case of PPT v ITV News and the Guardian. The claimant, an unnamed celebrity, sought an injunction to prevent the defendant news outlets publishing serious allegations about his conduct. Jon Belcher, partner at Excello Law, explains why the anonymous celebrity’s injunction was unsuccessful.
The court was asked to issue an injunction to prevent ITV News and the Guardian publishing information they determine to be in the public interest, naming the claimant as having abused his fame to attempt “inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women”.
Anonymity in cases like this is not novel, but there is an unusual angle in the court’s consideration here of whether publication should be blocked when the individual in question claims the resulting media coverage would lead to their self-harm.
What did the claimant seek?
Although the claimant denies the underlying allegations, the case primarily concerned the potential impact of publication rather than the veracity of the allegations. In short, the claimant argued that publication would expose him to a real and immediate risk of serious harm or death.
The court heard that the claimant was exceptionally vulnerable due to mental health issues and had attempted suicide after being confronted with the allegations. Psychiatric evidence showed that publication would materially increase the suicide risk. Nevertheless, the claimant failed to obtain the injunction. Unless any appeal is successful, ITV News and the Guardian will be free to publish the allegations.
What the law says
The claimant relied entirely on the court’s obligations under the Human Rights Act, and in particular Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights. While acknowledging the seriousness of the risk to the claimant of publication, the court did not consider that it had ‘assumed responsibility’ for the claimant or for the publication, so there was no operational duty under Articles 2 or 3 on the court to act to prevent publication.
In addition, the court noted that the claimant had not identified any specific cause of action (e.g. in defamation, breach of confidence, misuse of private information or data protection), and instead was relying on the court’s general equitable powers. The court found this did not provide a proper basis for granting an injunction.
Although not its primary focus, the court also considered the rights under Articles 8 (private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression). These are qualified rights, and privacy cases often turn on the appropriate balance between the right to privacy of the individual and the freedom of expression rights of the press. The claimant did not assert that the publication involved private information and, without a pleaded cause of action, this aspect of the claim failed for the same reasons as with Articles 2 and 3. The court stated that “Article 8 does not itself create a free-standing cause of action by which one private person may restrain another”.
While there was no need to consider the balancing test in this case, the judge noted that Article 8 also protects the rights of individuals (in this case the sources relied upon by the defendants) to communicate their experiences, and so there were both Article 10 and Article 8 arguments in favour of publication. It would have been interesting to know how the court would have approached balancing the competing Article 8 arguments.
What can we learn from this case?
The ruling does not mean the courts dismiss the risk of suicide; the judge accepted it was serious. Nonetheless, to stop publication of information, a claimant will need to show the defendants are doing something the law specifically forbids such as defaming them, breaching confidence or misusing their private information. No such claim was made here, and human rights law on its own was insufficient to block the media outlets.
The Human Rights Act protects the rights to life and privacy, but it does not let one private person use those rights to obstruct the publication of information in the public interest. The court’s duty to protect life arises only in limited circumstances, typically where public bodies have taken responsibility for someone’s safety.
In England and Wales the law places a high value on press freedom, particularly where the publication involves allegations of serious misconduct or harm to young people, and the genuine mental health concerns in this case were not enough to justify the court acting to block these stories.
The reporting restrictions remain in place until any appeal is heard.
