NEWS

Celebrity Threesome Injunction: PJS And YMA Identities Not Revealed As Supreme Court Postpones Decision

The court will decide on 'three in a bed' ruling 'at a later date'.

21/04/2016 14:11 | Updated 21 April 2016

The Supreme Court has postponed making a decision on the celebrity threesome injunction, meaning the press still cannot name the famous couple at the centre of the legal row.

The court was expected to make a final decision on whether the celebrity, who allegedly had sex with another couple, and his world-famous spouse, identified as PJS and YMA in court respectively, could be named.

But it has announced it will reserve judgment and make a decision "at a later date", extending the English media's agonising wait to find out whether it can finally name them.

So far there have been two weeks of stories in the press in England and Wales, the only places the injunction has any legal effect, railing against how media is banned from naming the pair, while the press elsewhere and people on social media have.

The stay on identifying the pair, issued earlier in the week by the Court of Appeal, remains in place.

The injunction was originally granted in January and remained largely unknown until two weeks ago, when a US magazine's publication of their identities triggered a backlash in the press.

The decision follows days of legal arguments before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. 

On Monday, the Court of Appeal said the injunction should be lifted, saying it was no longer viable in light of easy it had become.

But it issued a stay that allowed PJS to appeal to the Supreme Court, which he did.

While this week's legal wrangle continued, an Australian news website became the latest publication to name the pair.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned publication named the world-famous couple, which it said were “trying to forbid the media from covering” the threesome.

“Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred,” said Lord Justice Jackson in in the Court of Appeal’s ruling. “The court should not make orders which are ineffective.”

The Supreme Court did not specify which date it would issue its judgment on.

Suggest a correction