The unidentified male celebrity who has fought in court to keep his name and sexual misconduct allegations from being published, can be named, a judge ruled Tuesday.

The anonymous man was seeking an injunction against Independent Television News (ITN) as well as Guardian News and Media, who had both conducted investigations into the sexual abuse claims.

On Tuesday, the celebrity lost his bid for the High Court injunction, but cannot yet be named subject to any appeal, a judge ruled, per the Sun.

“The claim brought by the claimant is dismissed and the application for the injunction is refused,” the judge in the case, Mr. Justice Nicklin told the court.

However, an interim injunction which protects his anonymity remains in place while he decides whether to appeal.

The celebrity’s legal team told the court that their client is currently not well enough to make a decision on whether to appeal, but he can take his case to the Court of Appeal if he chooses to.

As Page Six previously reported, the man is accused of “abus[ing] power and status” to contact young women and try to engage in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities.”

He has vehemently denied the accusations and also threatened to take his own life if his identity and allegations are published.

Sara Mansoori KC, the attorney for the “famous” man, said that publication “would have a potentially fatal impact” as he had already attempted to take his life twice when contacted by news outlets for comment on the claims.

She told the court, “The only reason they would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life.”

“The claimant has attempted suicide twice as a result of these matters, been hospitalized for months, been the subject of involuntary detention and been examined by multiple – now more than 10 – doctors.”

Mansoori also said that while the claimant denies the allegations, he “has no intention of returning to public life.”

Meanwhile, Gavin Millar, the attorney representing ITN and GNM, argued there is no precedent which shows there is a duty to prevent a risk of death in a case relating to the publication of statements which are said to trigger suicidal impulses.

“The obligation falls on the hospital to keep him safe, and that’s that,” he told the court.

Millar added that the allegations against the celebrity were gathered after “a wide-ranging and rigorous investigation” and that there was a “strong” public interest in publishing them, noting that the the media organizations have spoken to more than 100 people.

He also argued that his alleged victims who have come forward “have been traumatized by the claimant’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result.”