Who Is the Second Celebrity With an Injunction? What We Know About the Star Who Can’t Be Named

11th November 2026

Updated 11 Nov 2026, 16:47 · First published 11 Nov 2026

Who is the second celebrity hiding behind a court order? Days after David Walliams was finally named over sexual misconduct allegations – which he denies – it has emerged that another well-known man in the public eye is reported to have an injunction stopping allegations against him from being published.

He cannot be named. Here is everything we can legally tell you – and why you should not try to guess.

The second celebrity: what we know

WhoA male celebrity “in the public eye” – identity protected by a court order

The claimAllegations from “multiple, multiple victims”, according to journalist Justine Smith

SourceThe Private Eye podcast

InjunctionReported to block any reporting of the allegations

A woman ready to speakSmith says one alleged victim is willing to be named – but cannot be published

Can he be named?No – not while the order is in place

“There are two men at the moment who can’t be named”

The claim was made by journalist Justine Smith on the Private Eye podcast, in an episode recorded before Walliams’ identity became public. She said: “There are two men at the moment who can’t be named,” adding: “Both of them have injunctions against reporting anything.”

One of those men has since been revealed as Walliams, after he lost his court fight. The other is still protected. Smith said she had spoken to one of his alleged victims, who is prepared to go public. “She’s prepared to speak publicly and be named,” she said – but the injunction means her story cannot be told.

📬 The Energy BriefingTop news, sport and what's on in London, straight to your inbox. Free.

What Justine Smith said

“There are two men at the moment who can’t be named. Both of them have injunctions against reporting anything.”

Justine Smith, Private Eye podcast

“He’s managed to get an injunction, very heavily slapped anyone who dares to say anything about it.”

Justine Smith

Why can’t he be named?

An injunction is a court order that stops someone from doing something – in this case, publishing information. Celebrities usually apply for them on the grounds of privacy, misuse of private information, harassment or breach of confidence. A judge has to weigh the person’s right to privacy against freedom of expression and the public interest.

A super-injunction goes further and bans anyone from even reporting that the order exists. That is not what is being described here: the existence of this injunction can be reported, but not the name of the man or the details of the allegations.

Don’t guess online

Since the reports, people have been trying to work out who the celebrity is on social media and forums. Be careful: anyone who breaks a court order – including by naming or hinting at someone’s identity online – can be found in contempt of court, and wrongly naming an innocent person can be libellous. Energy Radio will not speculate about who he is.

How Walliams went from anonymous to named

Walliams had also been protected by anonymity while he tried to stop The Guardian and ITV News publishing their investigation. On 3 November, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed his bid for an injunction at the High Court, saying it would be an “exceptionally serious interference” with freedom of expression. The court did not decide whether the allegations were true.

Walliams had until 4.30pm on Monday 9 November to appeal. He did not, and on 10 November he was named. He denies all the allegations, saying: “I am not a sexual predator… I have not broken the law.”

Could the second celebrity be named?

Only if the injunction is lifted, varied or overturned – for example if a court decides the public interest outweighs his privacy, or if the media organisations involved win a legal challenge. Until then, his name stays secret.

If you have been affected by any of the issues in this story, the NSPCC helpline is available on 0808 800 5000.