British comedian and children’s author David Walliams has been identified as the celebrity who fought a lengthy legal battle to prevent two major media organisations from publishing sexual misconduct allegations against him.Walliams, 55, was previously referred to only as “PPT” in court proceedings as he sought to stop ITN and The Guardian from revealing his identity and reporting allegations that he had used his fame and influence to pursue inappropriate and exploitative sexual relationships with girls and young women over several years.The identity of the former Little Britain star was revealed on Tuesday after he failed to secure an injunction preventing publication of the allegations.Walliams had argued that identifying him publicly could have potentially fatal consequences, with his lawyers telling the High Court that he had attempted suicide twice in recent months and required psychiatric hospitalisation.Judge Matthew Nicklin rejected his bid to prevent the reports from being published, ruling that the public interest in allowing the media organizations to report their findings outweighed the arguments for maintaining the injunction.
What are the accusations against David Wailliams?
A joint investigation by The Guardian and ITV News, based on accounts from around 30 sources and supporting records, reported allegations involving multiple women. Two women claimed they first met Walliams when they were 15 and alleged that they were groomed. Other allegations included unsolicited messages and inappropriate behaviour towards young women.Walliams has denied sexual misconduct, predatory behaviour, harassment and workplace wrongdoing. He has acknowledged that some women with whom he had casual relationships in the past may have felt hurt, but denied abusing his power or breaking the law.The controversy has also affected his professional career. HarperCollins ended its publishing relationship with the author in 2025 following an internal investigation into allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards young female employees.Walliams had sought to keep his identity secret, arguing that publication would seriously worsen his mental health and put his life at risk. His legal team maintained that the consequences of identifying him could be devastating.However, the judge concluded that preventing publication would amount to a serious interference with press freedom. The court’s decision did not establish whether the allegations against Walliams were true.