A celebrity who asked the High Court to permanently prevent two news organisations from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct has lost his case, with the court saying the man's claim for an injunction was denied.

But the judge said a temporary injunction preventing the man from being named and the allegations published should remain in place, in order to allow the celebrity to appeal against the judgment, with anonymity and reporting restrictions remaining in force during the period allowed for any appeal.

ITN and the Guardian have said they believe it is in the public interest to publish allegations that the man abused his status to engage, or attempt to engage, in "inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women".

The man, who denies the allegations, said any publication would be "highly likely" to lead him to kill himself, and that the court should prevent any publication or broadcast.

In his judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the injunction request.

He said: "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."

Nicklin noted that the man has repeatedly said he intends to take his own life if the allegations are published, and that this must be taken seriously.

He added these statements do not "establish that suicide is inevitable or that treatment cannot reduce the risk".

With a strict anonymity order remaining in place, it would be against the law to identify the man or publish details that might do so.

The man can now take his case to the Court of Appeal. Sara Mansoori KC, representing the celebrity, asked the court for time to decide whether he wanted to challenge the ruling.

She said that her client is "in a highly vulnerable position" and has "not been in a position to give us instructions on any appeal".

The claimant must lodge reasons to appeal by 16:30 GMT on 9 November.

The case raises highly unusual legal issues concerning whether a court should stop publication when an individual claims that a media investigation would lead to them inflicting harm on themselves.

The celebrity first asked the court in the summer to stop the publication of the investigation after journalists contacted him with allegations about this sexual activities with a large number of young women.

ITN and the Guardian said their investigation had uncovered how the celebrity had allegedly abused his "power and status".

During last week's application for a permanent injunction, Mansoori said making the allegations public would have a "potentially fatal impact".

The barrister told the court that the man had tried to kill himself after he had been contacted by the media organisations and was later detained in hospital for his own protection - but later absconded and tried a second time to end his life.

Those incidents of self-harm had not been because of the allegations themselves but the result of "long-term trauma and the fear of trial by media", she argued.

"The only reason [suicide attempts] would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life," she said.

Lawyers for the media groups argued that there was a strong public interest in allowing their investigation to be publicised because of the serious nature of the allegations.

In his judgment, Nicklin wrote: "The proposed publications concern serious allegations about the conduct of a prominent person and the alleged use of status, influence and access in dealings with women and girls.

"The subject matter includes alleged abuse of power, sexual misconduct and inappropriate conduct towards younger or vulnerable persons.

"Those are matters capable of making a significant contribution to public debate."

The celebrity argued that publishing the allegations would breach his protections under the European Convention on Human Rights, including articles that guarantee the right to life and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment.

However, the judge rejected the claim that publication would violate the man's right to life, writing: "No prior case establishes that the Court's knowledge of a suicide risk, together with its power to prohibit the event expected to increase that risk, is by itself enough to require the Court to act."

The judge accepted that publishing would cause the man "acute and potentially prolonged mental suffering" – but said "established law did not impose a positive obligation upon the Court to prevent that suffering by restraining publication".

The man also cited the right to private and family life.

While the judge acknowledged that publication "would interfere exceptionally seriously with the Claimant's private and family life", he also rejected that claim, saying a permanent injunction "would have been an exceptionally serious restriction upon freedom of expression".

The BBC Action Line website has information about organisations that can offer support for the issues raised in this story.

Unnamed celebrity accused of 'inappropriate sexual activities', court hears

'Well-known' man asks court to stop publication of sexual offence allegation