The pair have been named in an American print publication reporting on the infidelity.
But a draconian privacy injunction means Britons are barred from learning in the media who the well-known couple are. The celebrity, who has young children with his spouse, was involved in a threesome with another couple.
This sexual relationship came to an end but the trio remained friends.
Earlier this year, however, the couple approached a newspaper offering to tell their story.
A High Court judge initially turned down an application for a privacy injunction from the celebrity because his infidelity contradicted his public portrayal of married commitment.
He went to the Appeal Court where judges said he was in the entertainment business and married to 'a well-known individual in the same business'.
In the public ruling, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson said the couple had an open relationship and the spouse accepted the celebrity had sexual encounters from time to time.
He said a story would generate a media storm, public interest in the family, and press attention directed at the children. It would be 'devastating for the claimant' and the need for privacy was stronger than the right to publish.
The ruling meant the British media was banned from publishing the story.
The situation is a 'farce' making an 'ass out of the law', according to Tory MP Philip Davies.
The celebrity's infidelity being reported in the US means it can potentially be read about by all 319million Americans. This is expected to spark countless posts online.
Bob Satchwell, executive director at the Society of Editors, said injunctions were draconian, outdated and ludicrous.
'THE TRUTH WILL ALWAYS COME OUT'
The injunction farce shows there are no boundaries in social media, according to a PR and branding consultant.
Mark Borkowski said the truth will ultimately come out as it did when football's Ryan Giggs tried to hide his infidelity.
'This scenario is akin to King Canute who sat on the beach trying to hold back the waves,' he said. 'We are in the digital, global age where there are no boundaries.
'Things have been falling apart for the two people involved for some time and you have to look at how they promote themselves as a happy family while another narrative goes on.
'The people who stand to make money out of this are the lawyers. These matters never go away.
'What people want is the story. Once you report there is a injunction you know there is a story and people burrow away to get it.'
'On one level, it means people who buy these injunctions are wasting their money,' he said. 'But it is quite ridiculous that people elsewhere can know about the story but people in Britain are not allowed to. It makes a mockery of the system.'
And John Hemming, the former Lib Dem MP who exposed Ryan Giggs's infidelity in the House of Commons in 2011, said it left judges looking out of touch.
'King Canute showed he could not hold back the waves, and he was making a point that our judges would be wise to learn from,' he said.
The Appeal Court ruling by Lord Justice Jackson and Lady Justice Eleanor King that the infidelity is a private matter under human rights law, and not of any public interest, means British newspapers and broadcasters may not name them.
Until yesterday the judges' decision shielded the celebrity from public exposure of his infidelity to his spouse and ensured that his longstanding claims of commitment to his partner will go unchallenged.
The fact that his behaviour is now public in America while censored from newspapers in this country means the return of controversy over the way judges have developed the privacy injunction, in which the rich and famous appeal to human rights law to suppress unflattering news about themselves.
Over the past four years a number of celebrities have proved reluctant to turn to the law courts to hide their embarrassment.
The temporary decline in the use of privacy injunctions followed the public exposure of the infidelities of footballer Ryan Giggs and disgraced banker Fred Goodwin.
Both men tried to use the courts to silence information about affairs, but both were the subject of speculation on social media. They were named in Parliament in 2011 under the rules of legal immunity.
Mr Hemming, who now runs the pressure group Justice for Families, added: 'The judiciary in London have to understand that their rulings only go as far as the edge of England and Wales.
'They have no effect in the rest of the world, and, as was demonstrated during the Giggs affair, they do not even apply in Scotland.
'Those wealthy people who think they can use expensive lawyers to suppress freedom of speech will, I hope, be beginning to realise that it doesn't work.'
Lord Justice Jackson and Lady Justice King said the celebrity met another sexual partner in 2007 or 2008, and later asked if the individual, who can be identified only as CD, and CD's own partner, were 'up for a three-way'.
'Accordingly, the three met for a three-way sexual encounter which they duly carried out,' the judge said.
After that, the sexual relationship with the celebrity came to an end but they remained friends.
Earlier this year, however, that couple approached the Sun on Sunday.
At first a High Court judge turned down an application for a privacy injunction on the grounds that the couple had portrayed an image of commitment and 'there is a public interest in correcting it when the claimant has engaged in the sort of casual sexual relationships as demonstrated in the evidence'.
But Lord Justice Jackson ruled in the Appeal Court case that the celebrity and his spouse, who have been in a relationship for many years, had an open relationship, and the spouse accepted that the celebrity had sexual encounters with others from time to time.
The judge said publicity about the couple showed not 'total marital fidelity, but rather a picture of a couple who are in a long-term, loving and committed relationship. That image is an accurate one.'
Duncan Lamont, a media lawyer at Charles Russell Speechlys, said: 'It is now for media who wish to publish the details to return to the Court of Appeal to apply to get the injunction lifted.
'It is daft when British people are not officially allowed to know the story but everybody else is. But the injunction is still there and that is the law.'
Another media lawyer, Mark Stephens of Howard Kennedy, said: 'This is definitely not sensible. It was predictable that this would all come out. By taking out the injunction the individuals concerned painted a target on their own backs.
'By staying within America, the US publication is safe. The law in America is very different. There is no privacy law in America, nor is there such a law in Australia, or New Zealand, or elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Privacy law is essentially an invention of continental Europe.'
HOW BRITISH CELEBRITIES USE INJUNCTIONS TO KEEP THEIR PRIVATE LIVES SECRET
'Pointless': Jeremy Clarkson (pictured) took out a super-injunction but later admitted it was a mistake
+1
'Pointless': Jeremy Clarkson (pictured) took out a super-injunction but later admitted it was a mistake
Super-injunctions are a legal instrument which prevent the reporting of certain facts or allegations, and also ban the existence of the injunction itself from being reported.
The device came to public prominence in 2011, when it emerged that a large number of celebrities had taken out the court orders in response to Press stories about their private lives.
One of the most high-profile cases was that of Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs, who used a super-injuction to prevent his extra-marital affair with model Imogen Thomas from coming to light.
The existence of Mr Giggs's injunction became public when Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, a transparency campaigner, used parliamentary privilege to name the footballer in the House of Commons in May 2011.
Two months earlier, Mr Hemming had revealed that shamed former RBS boss Fred Goodwin had an injunction banning the reporting of his affair with a colleague.
In the same year, TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson admitted that he had taken out a super-injunction designed to stop his ex-wife talking about an alleged affair of his.
The star said that injunctions were 'pointless', adding: 'You take out an injunction against somebody or some organisation and immediately news of that injunction and the people involved and the story behind the injunction is in a legal-free world on Twitter and the internet.'
Similarly, Andrew Marr admitted in April 2011 that he had taken out a super-injunction following an affair with another journalist, saying he was 'embarrassed' about the court order.
However, most of the super-injunctions taken out by celebrities are still in force, meaning that the identities of those behind them cannot be reported.
These include claims that one female entertainer was sacked from her job after an affair with a colleague, and reports of a well-known married celebrity sleeping with a prostitute.
dailymail
0 Comments