LONDON, United Kingdom – British comedian and children’s author David Walliams has lost his High Court bid to prevent the publication of sexual misconduct allegations against him and to remain anonymous in the proceedings.
Walliams did not appeal the ruling by the deadline on Monday, November 9. His identity was made public the following day after reporting restrictions protecting him were lifted, allowing the two media organisations involved in the case to publish their investigation.
The High Court dismissed his application for a permanent injunction on November 3. Walliams had sought to stop Independent Television News and Guardian News & Media from publishing allegations concerning his conduct towards several women over a period of years.
The allegations include claims that he used his public profile and influence to pursue younger women for sexual purposes. Some women reportedly said they were teenagers when they first encountered him. Walliams denies the allegations and any criminal wrongdoing.
The court did not determine whether any of the allegations were true. The case concerned whether publication should be prohibited because of the potential risk to Walliams’ life and his rights to privacy and protection.
Why Walliams sought the injunction
Walliams’ lawyers argued that publication would create a serious risk of suicide. They told the court that he had made two previous suicide attempts after being contacted about the allegations and had received psychiatric treatment.
An independent psychiatrist appointed for the proceedings found that Walliams had a serious underlying psychiatric vulnerability and an elevated risk of suicide. The expert did not conclude, however, that suicide was inevitable if the allegations were published.
The legal arguments relied on protections under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life, protection from inhuman or degrading treatment and respect for private and family life.
■ Related News
Judge weighs privacy against freedom of expression
Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that the court should not impose the requested injunction. He recognised that publication could have severe consequences for Walliams, but found that responsibility for protecting his immediate safety rested with the mental health services treating him.
The judge also considered the freedom of expression rights of the media organisations, their sources and the public. He found that the proposed reporting concerned matters of substantial public interest and that a permanent restriction would represent an exceptionally serious interference with those rights.
The judgment made clear that refusing the injunction was not a finding that the allegations were true. It also did not amount to approval of any particular publication. The court was deciding whether to prevent publication, not conducting a trial of the allegations themselves.
Reporting restrictions lifted after appeal deadline
Walliams was initially identified in court documents only as “PPT”. An anonymity order issued on October 5 prohibited the publication of his identity in connection with the proceedings.
After the November 3 judgment, the court allowed time for an appeal and maintained the reporting restrictions during that period. Walliams did not appeal by the November 9 deadline, clearing the way for his identity to be reported publicly.
The allegations became public through a joint investigation published on November 10. Walliams has continued to deny wrongdoing, while acknowledging that he had sometimes behaved thoughtlessly in past casual relationships and expressing regret that some women felt hurt or angry. He has rejected the characterization of himself as a sexual predator.
Primary Sources:: PPT v Independent Television News Limited and Guardian News & Media Limited, High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, judgment delivered on November 3, 2026, case KB-2026-003646 ([2026] EWHC 2818 (KB)): dismissed the claimant’s application for a permanent injunction, explained the court’s assessment of the competing rights and risks, and expressly stated that the truth of the allegations was not being determined; High Court anonymity and reporting restrictions order dated October 5, 2026, in the same proceedings: required the claimant’s identity to be withheld and restricted publication of information identifying him while the case proceeded. The judgment and order are publicly available court documents.
