David Walliams lost his High Court battle to keep his identity secret over sex claims against him.

The former Britain’s Got Talent judge and author is now facing allegations from several women that he groomed them for sex when they were teenagers, including from one individual when she was aged 15.

He denies any wrongdoing.

Details of the allegations against him were made public after he failed to get an injunction to stop the publication of the claims against him.

Now, the spotlight has shifted to a second celebrity injunction understood to have been obtained by another prominent figure.

The focus on this individual was triggered by journalist Justine Smith on The Private Eye Podcast, reporting that there is another man “in the public eye” who has obtained an injunction.

Ahead of Walliams being named, she said on the podcast: “There are two men out at the moment that can't be named.

“One of the most recent proceedings, and then one from several months back.

“Both of them, there are injunctions on reporting anything. Both of them, multiple, multiple victims. Both of them in the public eye.”

She added: “I've spoken to one of the alleged victims in one of them. She's prepared to speak publicly and be named, but we still can't publish her.

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

“So we know this man is out there potentially abusing other people, and there's nothing we can do to report it.”

Privacy injunctions are used in media law to prevent the publication of private or confidential information, so they can allow an individual to keep their anonymity.

“An injunction either prevents someone from carrying out a specific act or compels them to do something,” says Shubha Nath, managing director of boutique Mayfair law firm Nath Solicitors.

“With the prevalence of social media over the last decade, injunctions have increasingly been used to force individuals to remove information they have published online.”

In some cases, individuals have sought an injunction to stop the publication of intimate images.

However, some high-profile figures have been accused of using injunctions to seek to keep secret damaging claims against them.

The legal firm outlined how a super-injunction, rarely granted nowadays, is a “particularly powerful” type of injunction.

“It is usually granted under anonymity and prevents confidential or private information about the applicant being published but also prevents information about the existence of the injunction being published,” it said.

“Super-injunctions have, in many cases, been used by high-profile individuals to avoid information about their private lives from being published in the media.

“When a judge agrees to grant a super-injunction, a person including a newspaper is not only prevented from publishing the story, but it cannot print any story detailing how the individual took legal steps to stop private information from being revealed. “

London lawyers Kingsley Napley detailed steps, on its website, which can be taken by individuals seeking injunctions through the court.

“An injunction is a court order requiring a party to do or stop doing a certain act,” the legal firm says.

“An interim injunction is a temporary injunction, which is usually granted pending a further hearing or until a full trial of the dispute.

“Before granting an injunction, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy.”