An anonymous U.K. celebrity has lost his injunction bid to prevent two news organizations from publishing sexual misconduct allegations against him and therefore revealing his identity.

Earlier this month, it was reported that an anonymous celebrity had applied for a permanent injunction at London’s High Court to try to stop ITN and The Guardian from publishing a story containing allegations that he abused his power to engage in “inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women,” according to BBC News. The celebrity denies the allegations.

Judge Mr. Justice Nicklin rejected the injunction request on Tuesday, as reported by BBC News, but the celebrity will remain anonymous for the time being to allow him a chance to appeal the judgement.

“The claimant’s claim for an injunction was dismissed,” Nicklin said in his ruling. However, he added: “The court did not determine whether the allegations, or any of them, were true, and the dismissal of the claim does not amount to approval of any publication the defendants may decide to make.”

The lawyer for the celebrity told the court earlier that should he lose the injunction and the stories publish, it was “highly likely” he would attempt to commit suicide. According to his lawyer, he has already attempted to do so twice before.

ITN and The Guardian’s lawyer, on the other hand, argued that publishing the allegations and the man’s identity is in the public’s best interest. He said that the news organizations had spoken to over 100 people in their investigation and that many of the women “have been traumatized by the claimant’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result,” according to BBC News.

The unusual case has sparked much conversation in the U.K. amid widespread speculation about the celebrity’s identity, as well as concern for potential ramifications on press freedom. on Monday, Variety spoke with defamation lawyer Paul Tweed about the likelihood that the celebrity’s request would be approved due to his mental health.

“The court don’t grant that very lightly — they’ll be very thorough in their examination of whether there is a genuine risk of suicide, or whether that is being used just an excuse, basically,” Tweed said, though he acknowledged that a “threat to life” is one of very few “main grounds that are remaining” for an injunction such as this in today’s world.