TODAY, THE MAN who unsuccessfully sought an injunction against two media organisations to prevent them from revealing his identity – in relation to allegations of sexual misconduct - was named as David Walliams.

Walliams was the subject of a years-long investigation by the Guardian and ITV News and, by summer 2026, they were ready to publish allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour and grooming from a number of women against the well-known English television personality and best-selling children’s author. 

In May last year, the journalists involved in the investigation sent a detailed email seeking his response to a number of accusations. At some time between then and October, Walliams sought an injunction to prevent the publication of the allegations. His lawyers said this action was taken because, if the investigation was published, there was a risk he would take his own life.

In a letter to the investigating journalists, Walliams denied the claims, saying he wasn’t a sexual predator.

He wrote: “Looking back, I realise that at times I behaved thoughtlessly towards other people I had casual sexual relationships with.

“I realise I did not always take people’s feelings properly into account. That is something I regret.

“And whilst a power imbalance is inevitable when one party is famous, abusing that power is something else entirely and it is something that I never did.

“I am not a sexual predator. I have not broken the law, but I am devastated that some of the women I met 10 to 20 years ago have now expressed hurt or anger towards me.”

The injunction application was brought 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.

Last Tuesday, Walliams lost the bid for the UK High Court injunction, but he was not named immediately.

During the legal proceedings, all that was known was that the person was a “well-known individual”, although there was plenty of speculation on online forums.

So, why couldn’t David Walliams be named until now?

What is an injunction?

An injunction is essentially a court order that either compels a person, business or organisation to do something, or prohibits them from doing something.

There is also such a thing as a super-injunction, which prevents reporting that the injunction exists at all, but that is not what was sought in this case.

The seeking of injunctions by celebrities, or those very much in the public eye, is not unusual, and they are often brought based on legal claims relating to the misuse of private information, harassment or breach of confidence.

In this case, however, the difference was that the injunction rested on claims from Walliam’s legal team that if the allegations were published, it would be “highly likely” that Walliams would take his own life.  

He was granted anonymity throughout the court proceedings.

According to The Guardian, the man’s legal team told the court that he had attempted to take his own life on two occasions previously. They said publishing the claims would breach Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which relate to the right to life and prohibition of torture, respectively.

Why couldn’t Walliams be named until now? 

On 3 November, at the High Court in London, Judge Nicklin dismissed the injunction bid. 

He ruled it would be an “exceptionally serious interference” with freedom of expression.

In the 52-page judgment he also said that granting the injunction would not treat the man’s psychiatric condition or eliminate his elevated risk.

He continued that hospitals and health staff caring for Walliams, who was detained under the Mental Health Act in October, meant that the state had “assumed responsibility” for his immediate safety and “can provide significant protection”, which “materially reduces the likelihood of suicide”.

Related Reads

David Walliams named as celebrity behind failed injunction as multiple allegations are published

He noted, however, that “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”.

The judge also said that it would not be up to a court to name the man in the case.

He said: “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.

“The court does nothing to pre-empt that decision, which will be for the defendants and the defendants alone when any legal impediment to publication is removed.”

The judge also said that the anonymity and reporting restrictions order needed to remain in place to allow any appeal bids to be lodged.

In court last week, Walliams’s legal team told the judge they could not indicate what any grounds for an appeal would be as they could not take instructions from their client as he was in hospital. 

As a result, the judge granted an appeal in principle but with an end-date of Monday, 9 November at 4.30pm. In the intervening time, the anonymity order was kept in place. 

The deadline passed on Monday afternoon. Walliams did not appeal, and so today, ITV and The Guardian published stories naming him and detailing the full extent of the allegations.

Walliams denies these allegations.

With additional reporting by Jane Moore and Press Association