Justice scales
The identities of the celebrities involved in the threesome are already being mentioned on social mediaDan Kitwood/Getty Images

An entertainer's partner had an extra-marital threesome with another couple and in March, the celebrity and his partner won a privacy injunction that restricts publications in the UK from naming either of them.

The man, who has children with his partner, has already been named in a US publication but the gag order imposed by the Court of Appeal in London still restricts UK publications from mentioning them by name. A High Court judge previously ruled in favour of The Sun on Sunday that wanted to publish the person's identity.

In the appeals ruling, Lord Justice Jackson said the couple disputed that "publication of the story would serve any interest". The judge claimed that revealing their identities would be "devastating" and would "generate a media storm" that would affect their children.

Following the gag order, the other man involved in the menage a trios has revealed that he is being bullied by the famous couple and "threatened with jail for telling the truth".

Speaking to The Sun, he said, "The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. We have been threatened with perjury, contempt of court and prison — all for telling the truth about this threesome. We have had endless calls and emails from the star's lawyers, and even had a threatening letter hand-delivered letter through our door."

The man, who was referred to as AB by the appeals judge added, "The famous couple don't deny that it happened. But they have used the courts to cover up what the partner has done in a way they should not be used.

The man told The Sun how he had swapped messages with the star's partner starting in 2009. One message to the man from the star's partner included a request for a "3-way."

"I did take part in a threesome with the star's partner. At the time I was attracted to the glitz and glamour of that life.

"They say they were in an open relationship so why try to keep it a secret now? What is there to hide?"

Talking about the legal pressure he has endured, he said: "We are normal human beings and have had problems and threats non-stop. What about our human rights and freedom of expression? It is not just about this story any more — it's a wider issue; and people like them should not be able to use the courts to stop this stuff just because they have got pots of money."

Critics have mocked the Court of Appeal saying that the ruling made "an ass out of the law" considering the information they tried to keep private was already made available on social media.