Walliams court ruling allows publication of misconduct allegations

Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in late October that allegations against David Walliams “are matters capable of making a significant contribution to public debate,” rejecting a bid for an injunction that would have blocked publication permanently.

The Guardian and ITV News reported the allegations after a joint investigation into Walliams’ conduct toward young women over many years. The ruling followed letters sent to him in May and his lawyers’ attempt to stop publication. It did not determine whether the claims were true.

The Guardian and ITV News describe Walliams as one of Britain’s best-known television personalities and a top-selling children’s author.

What did the women allege?

Alex said she met Walliams at a Little Britain fan event in 2004, when she was 15. They kept in contact by phone and email until she turned 17, when she said he began asking for sexualised photographs.

Alex said they later met three times at his flat while she was 17 and 18. They had sex twice and oral sex once. She said the encounters were consensual but that she never controlled the situation and that Walliams abused his power.

Jade said Walliams contacted her online in 2007, when she was 15 and he was 36, then kissed and touched her sexually. Both women said they felt groomed and that he used his power and celebrity to initiate contact.

Two other women, Lilly Creightmore and Ella, said he contacted them out of the blue and pursued them for sex. Creightmore was 18 in 2003; Ella was 19 in 2007. Neither had sex with him, but both said his conduct was inappropriate and abused his power.

Walliams’ lawyers said he denied all four women’s allegations. They said he did not deny having sex with Alex.

The joint investigation also reported concerns from dozens of people. Some were models and fans, aged 17 to 22 when Walliams messaged them unprompted on social media. Others described or witnessed inappropriate workplace behaviour.

What happened at Britain’s Got Talent?

Walliams became a judge on Britain’s Got Talent in 2012. Sarah said she met him on the show’s set in 2016, when she was 18 and he was 44.

He invited her and an 18-year-old friend to stay at his house, served them wine, tried to kiss her and tried to lead her to his bedroom. She said she was so drunk she could hardly stand and told him she was not interested sexually.

Sarah said: “If you have celebrity status, why can you not get women closer to your age range? … Is it, like, for manipulation? What do we have in common with a 44-year-old man?”

Walliams’ lawyers denied that he used celebrity status to manipulate young women or got Sarah drunk to take advantage of her. They said there was no sexual contact and he did not force himself on her.

Former Britain’s Got Talent staff told the Guardian and ITV News that concerns extended to young women working on the show. One former production runner said she felt “small” and “almost disembodied” after hearing Walliams call her “the one with the arse”.

Other former staff said runners aged 19 and 21 gave Walliams their personal numbers. He called one “gorgeous” and allegedly asked the other to meet him outside work. Colleagues felt uncomfortable that a star of the show was contacting junior staff.

The production companies behind the show and ITV each said they were not aware of complaints about Walliams.

What did the publishing allegations show?

Former employees told the Guardian and ITV News that concerns about his conduct toward female staff at work events had been raised for years. In early 2024, HarperCollins began an inquiry into alleged inappropriate behaviour toward young women in the workplace.

One junior employee, 20 years his junior, was an intern when a sexual relationship with Walliams began. Multiple sources said she later described it to colleagues as an “abuse of power”. Managers also heard concerns after he obtained another junior employee’s email and asked her out.

A HarperCollins spokesperson said the company had decided not to publish any new titles by Walliams and that it took “employee wellbeing extremely seriously”.

Why did the court reject the injunction?

Walliams’ lawyers said that, after the May letters, he attempted suicide, was treated in a psychiatric hospital, absconded while on leave and attempted suicide again. They said these actions reflected fear of public shame and “trial by media”, not guilt.

The lawyers argued that publication risked his life. Mr Justice Nicklin heard the case in late October. The court also heard evidence of a “signifiant psychiatric history”, including “recurrent depressive illness, longstanding suicidal ideation” and previous suicidal behaviour. Walliams is now being treated in a mental health facility.

What has Walliams said?

His lawyers denied that he used his power and celebrity to have sex with young women or teenagers, or that he was a sexual predator. They said he was devastated if any of the women felt that way and denied grooming and inappropriate workplace behaviour. They said the two relationships at HarperCollins had been consensual.

“Looking back, I realise that at times I behaved thoughtlessly towards other people I had casual sexual relationships with.

“I realise I did not always take people’s feelings properly into account. That is something I regret. And whilst 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.

“I am not a sexual predator … I have not broken the law, but I am devastated that some of the women I met 10 to 20 years ago have now expressed hurt or anger towards me.”

What does this change for Walliams?

The injunction is no longer a legal barrier. The concrete publishing consequence is HarperCollins’ decision not to issue new Walliams titles.

The court has settled what can be published, not whether the allegations are true; the accounts and his denials remain contested.