From footballers and actors to television personalities, dozens of high-profile figures have used privacy injunctions to keep alleged affairs and sexual misconduct claims out of the public eye.
David Walliams was identified this week as the “well-known man” who had applied for a gagging order to prevent allegations against him from being reported.
A judge rejected his application, and the comedian has since faced public accusations involving girls as young as 15. He strongly denies the claims.
Although Walliams’ attempt was unsuccessful, scores of celebrities, sportspeople and other public figures have successfully turned to the courts to suppress allegations of infidelity and sexual misconduct.
Official figures show that 111 applications for new privacy injunctions have been made over the past decade.
Another prominent male celebrity, who has been accused of having “multiple” victims, is also understood to be protected by a court order.
Justine Smith, of Private Eye magazine, said the unnamed star had secured the order several months ago and remained “in the public eye”.
Most injunction applications involving celebrities are used to conceal alleged affairs, with applicants relying on arguments based on privacy law.
Among the public figures who still cannot be named in the Press is PJS, a married celebrity who was alleged to have had a threesome with a couple in a paddling pool filled with olive oil.
Lower courts initially rejected his application for a privacy injunction, reasoning that the alleged conduct conflicted with his public image as a devoted married man. The Supreme Court later ruled in his favour.
David Walliams was identified this week as the “well-known man” who had sought a gagging order to block reports of allegations against him
Other stars to obtain injunctions include a footballer who suppressed claims that he had cheated on his partner with another celebrity, and a married actor who was alleged to have been unfaithful with Helen Wood, the escort who also slept with Wayne Rooney.
In 2015, a high-profile female celebrity described as a “figure of trust” secured an injunction in Manchester to prevent her lover from selling details of her affair with a famous married man to the Press.
Others who have kept alleged indiscretions out of the headlines include a football manager accused of having a secret lover, a “world-famous” sportsman alleged to have had an affair and a well-known married man in the entertainment industry.
In another case, a “high-profile figure” obtained an injunction to stop a woman disclosing details of sexual encounters at his home, arguing that reports would cause his family “very great distress”.
Marcus Johnstone, a specialist sexual offences lawyer at PCD Solicitors, said injunctions had frequently been used to restrict damaging Press coverage.
“Injunctions are made against a party, such as a news organisation or television production company, to prevent it from reporting allegations concerning an individual,” he told the Mail.
“Courts can issue an interim injunction, which is a temporary order that may be drafted very broadly and prevents reporting while the court examines the proceedings.
“The court then establishes what has actually happened. If a final injunction is granted, it will set out more precisely what is covered and which parties are bound by it.”
The use of privacy injunctions has varied considerably over the years.
Ministry of Justice figures show that there were two applications for new interim injunctions during the first half of the year.
There was also one hearing concerning a final privacy injunction and another involving the continuation or alteration of an existing order.
Proceedings of all types remained comparatively limited between 2016 and 2023, generally numbering between six and nine every six months. The figure then rose sharply during 2024, reaching 18 between January and June 2025.
The first six months of 2025 represented the busiest period on record, with 11 new applications and six cases involving the renewal or variation of an existing injunction.
Between 2016 and 2026, there were 111 applications for new interim privacy injunctions, alongside 16 hearings involving final injunctions and 43 hearings concerning the continuation or variation of existing orders.
Ryan Giggs famously obtained a gagging order to suppress reports of an alleged affair. However, it was secured in England and did not apply in Scotland, allowing Scottish newspapers to name him
A married actor also obtained an injunction after allegedly cheating on his wife with escort Helen Wood
Mr Johnstone said an injunction generally binds only the people or organisations specifically named in the court order. It may also apply to “unknown parties”, although those individuals must have been made aware of the order.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Trump and Netanyahu Reportedly Clash in Heated Shouting Match
Injunctions do not stop alleged victims from contacting the police. However, by limiting media coverage of suspected wrongdoing, they can reduce the likelihood that other people will come forward.
“Even a superinjunction—which prevents the existence of the injunction itself from being reported—cannot remove the police’s right to investigate,” Mr Johnstone said.
“It cannot override criminal law or an individual’s right to report an alleged crime to the police. People can still come forward, so an injunction should not prevent them from speaking out.”
The lawyer predicted that injunctions would become less attractive to celebrities as the modern media environment increasingly exposes their limitations.
“The use of injunctions 10 or 15 years ago was entirely different from the situation today.
“Walliams was the worst-kept secret around. It was circulating on social media and being reported everywhere outside England and Wales, including in Scotland. That makes a mockery of the whole concept of an injunction.”
Several celebrities have obtained privacy injunctions, only for their identities to emerge later.
The best-known example involved Ryan Giggs, who secured a gagging order in April 2011 to block reports of his alleged affair with model Imogen Thomas.
The attempt to silence the story unravelled after a sustained campaign on Twitter led Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming to name Giggs in Parliament.
Giggs had already been identified in Scotland, where injunctions granted in England and Wales do not automatically apply. The Sunday Herald published a photograph of him on its front page.
It later emerged that Giggs had also had an affair with his brother’s wife.
Jeremy Clarkson was granted a secrecy order in 2010 to prevent his former wife, Alex Hall, from claiming that they had conducted an affair after he remarried.
After his name appeared on social media, Clarkson chose to lift the order, saying: “Injunctions don’t work—it’s pointless.”
Andrew Marr became the first public figure to openly acknowledge that he had attempted to conceal an affair through the courts.
Chelsea star John Terry secured an injunction in 2010 to prevent newspapers reporting an alleged affair with Vanessa Perroncel, the former girlfriend of his Chelsea and England team-mate Wayne Bridge. Ms Perroncel is pictured with Bridge
Ryan Giggs secured a gagging order in April 2011 to suppress reports of his alleged affair with model Imogen Thomas. He is pictured with his wife, Stacey Cooke
Mr Marr obtained a High Court injunction in January 2008 to suppress reports of a relationship with a fellow journalist five years earlier.
At the time, he believed he had fathered a child with the woman and made maintenance payments until a DNA test showed that he was not the girl’s father.
Chelsea star John Terry also secured an injunction in 2010 to prevent newspapers reporting an alleged affair with Vanessa Perroncel, the former girlfriend of his Chelsea and England team-mate Wayne Bridge.
A judge later discharged the order, saying Terry appeared more concerned about the potential impact on his lucrative sponsorship agreements than his family’s privacy.
The allegations involving Walliams, together with the recent imprisonment of comedian Russell Brand, have renewed debate over accountability, secrecy and the legal tools available to protect high-profile figures from scrutiny.
The cases have also prompted calls for a review of non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, which are widely used in the entertainment industry to prevent people from revealing supposedly confidential information.
Make-up artist Lou Teasdale said it was “open and standard protocol” for women to sign NDAs and hand over their phones before being left alone with a famous man.
In an Instagram post published yesterday, the stylist—whose celebrity clients have included members of One Direction—said: “I’m not accusing any of the people I worked with of wrongdoing.
“I’m talking about a culture that exists, and is entirely legal, in which a celebrity man’s privacy is treated as more important than a woman’s safety.
“How can a man be expected to act with any accountability when an agreement is put in place beforehand to remove a woman’s voice and take away the device that could keep her safe?”
Giving evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee yesterday, media minister Ian Murray said he was “deeply saddened and also angry” by the prevalence of abuse by men in the media industry.
NDAs, he added, were “a major part of the problem”.