A well-known celebrity identified in court only as "PPT" is asking London's High Court for a permanent injunction blocking ITN and Guardian News and Media from naming him.

He denies allegations that he used his fame over several years to pursue girls and young women for "inappropriate sexual activities," including one specific allegation of a sexual offense.

What makes this case a break from the usual celebrity-injunction playbook is the legal ground itself.

According to the Daily Mail, rather than claiming a breach of privacy, PPT's team argues publication would endanger his life and expose him to inhumane or degrading treatment — a strategy the media outlets' barrister, Gavin Millar KC, described as "unprecedented."

Mansoori said her client has attempted suicide twice, spent months hospitalized, been involuntarily detained, and been assessed by more than 10 doctors, with the first attempt following letters from the outlets seeking his response.

She stressed this is not a case where someone has "spuriously raised" mental-health concerns.

The outlets fighting the injunction, per the Daily Mail, say their journalists spoke to more than 100 people about the celebrity, 30 of whom gave first-hand accounts.

Millar argued in court paperwork that the research suggested the celebrity had "abused his power...to prey on young women for sexual purposes over an extended period," that some allegations are serious enough to justify a criminal investigation, and that "young women may remain at risk while this information remains unreported."

He added that even without their journalism, contributors would likely find a "less curated, less journalistically responsible" way to be heard.

As names circulated online, Judge Nicklin issued a blunt warning: "The existence of online speculation, however confidently expressed or widely repeated, does not authorise anyone to identify...PPT in connection with these proceedings," nor does "repetition transform speculation into established fact."

International Business Times UK reports the anonymity order covers internet communications and social media posts, so ordinary users breaching it could face contempt proceedings with penalties of up to two years in prison or a fine — though any alleged breach would still go through proper legal process.

The IBTimes also notes the outlets maintain the investigation concerns significant public interest, while the hearing is about whether reporting can be published, not whether the allegations are true.

Mr Justice Nicklin said he would reserve judgment on whether to grant the injunction until next week, according to the Daily Mail, leaving PPT's identity protected in the meantime.

Until any change is formally confirmed, IBTimes UK reports, publishing identifying information remains prohibited regardless of how widely speculation spreads.

The case forces the court to weigh privacy, freedom of expression and the claimant's well-being against the media's public-interest argument — a balance Millar argued belongs elsewhere, saying there is no general state duty to prevent suicide and that mental-health treatment is a matter for the NHS rather than the courts.