David Walliams Named After Losing High Court Bid to Block Allegations

For weeks, the identity of a “well-known individual” fighting to stop two news organisations from publishing allegations against him was kept from the public. On 10 November 2026 that anonymity was lifted: the person was David Walliams, the 55-year-old comedian, former Britain’s Got Talent judge and best-selling children’s author.

The court battle

Walliams brought legal action against Independent Television News (ITN) and Guardian News and Media ahead of their reporting. According to reports of the hearing, his lawyers argued that publication carried a serious risk to his life. The High Court refused the injunction, finding the risks could be mitigated, and his anonymity ended once the investigations were published.

What is alleged

The joint investigation, which the Guardian describes as three years in the making, reports that multiple women allege Walliams used his celebrity status to pursue them for sexual purposes when they were teenagers or young women. Most say they were over 18 at the time. Several have asked to be identified by pseudonyms. None of the allegations has been tested in court.

“Alex”

A woman the Guardian calls Alex says Walliams phoned her in 2004, when she was 15 and he was 32, days after she met him at a Little Britain fan event and handed him some comedy scripts she had written. She says they kept in touch by phone and email over the following two years, that he later asked for photographs, and that by the time she was 17 they were having sex. She describes the encounters as consensual but says she felt unable to speak up, and now regards it as grooming. Walliams’s lawyers say the suggestion he groomed her is false: they say he wrote to her at 15 only to encourage her writing, that it was Alex who got back in touch later, that he believed she was 18 by then, and that he does not believe he asked her for pictures.

“Jade”

A second woman, called Jade by the Guardian, alleges Walliams messaged her on MySpace in 2007 when she was 15, after she commented beneath a photo of him. She says they exchanged emails and calls, and that weeks later he met her at a café in Soho, kissed her in a side street and invited her back to his home, where she says he initiated sexual contact. Walliams denies the allegations.

Other accounts

Another woman says Walliams sent a card to her mother’s home asking her for a date after noticing her at a London shop when she was 16; they met when she was 18. She says she made clear she wanted only friendship, but that he repeatedly pressed her for sex, including while she stayed at his home for a short period. A former friend of Walliams told the investigation he had once helped track down her contact details, and described a pattern of intense pursuit of women he found attractive.

In the workplace

The reporting also includes claims about Walliams’s behaviour towards women at Britain’s Got Talent and at his former publisher HarperCollins. According to the investigation, one woman who raised concerns at the publisher received a five-figure payout and left, while some staff were advised to work in pairs when meeting him and not to visit his home. HarperCollins has since ended its relationship with him, and Merlin Entertainments closed the World of David Walliams attraction at Alton Towers. Walliams denies any wrongdoing.

His response

Walliams denies all of the allegations. In a letter published by the Guardian he wrote that he is “not a sexual predator” and has not broken the law, while acknowledging that “at times I behaved thoughtlessly towards other people I had casual sexual relationships with.” He added that while “a power imbalance is inevitable when one party is famous, abusing that power is something else entirely and it is something that I never did.”

The fallout

The BBC says it is removing some content featuring Walliams from its platforms, including Little Britain. The Metropolitan Police says it has contacted both news organisations so that any potential victims know how to report criminal allegations, but that it has not received any related reports of offences.

The Crimeogram view

This case sits at the crossroads of privacy law, press freedom and the duty of care owed to someone in crisis. The court’s decision signals that a risk to wellbeing, however serious, will not automatically outweigh the public interest in journalism — provided that risk can be managed. What happens next depends on whether anyone takes a complaint to police. Until then, the presumption of innocence stands.