A celebrity who wants to keep his name out of a tabloid newspaper story has lost the latest round of a legal battle.

Three Court of Appeal judges ruled on Monday that an injunction barring The Sun on Sunday from naming the man should be lifted.

But the man wants the Supreme Court - the highest in the UK - to analyse the case.

And the appeal judges said the injunction would stay in place for 48 hours - to give the man's lawyers time to make an application to the Supreme Court.

Sun On Sunday editors want to publish an account of the man's alleged extra-marital activities.

Read more: MP who exposed Ryan Giggs says judges must lift 'extramarital activities' reporting ban

But the man argued that he had a privacy right and took legal action.

The newspaper won the first round in January when a High Court judge refused to impose an injunction barring publication.

But the man appealed - and two appeal court judges ruled in his favour.

Lord Justice Jackson and Lady Justice King imposed an injunction preventing the newspaper from identifying the man in an article.

Lawyers for News Group Newspapers, publishers of The Sun On Sunday, then asked three appeal judges to lift the ban.

They said at a Court of Appeal hearing on Friday that the ban should go because the man has been named in articles abroad and his identity could be found on the internet.

The man opposed the application and said the ban should stay in place.

Read more: Judges to rule on whether to lift injunction in celebrity private life story

But Lord Justice Jackson, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon ruled in the newspaper's favour on Monday.

"Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost," said Lord Justice Jackson in Monday's ruling.

"Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred."

He added: "The court should not make orders which are ineffective. It is, in my view, inappropriate (some may use a stronger term) for the court to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge."

Detail of the case had emerged earlier this year in a ruling published in March following the first Court of Appeal hearing before Lord Justice Jackson and Lady Justice King.

The two judges did not identify the man in their March ruling but referred to him only as PJS or the claimant.

They said he was ''well known'', married and in the entertainment business. They said his spouse - named as YMA - was also well-known in the entertainment business. They said the couple had ''young'' children.

Lord Justice Jackson said he and Lady Justice King had decided to allow the man's appeal after balancing the man's human right to respect for family life and the newspaper's right to free expression.

Sun On Sunday editors had argued that publication of the story would contribute to on-going debate.

They also said the man and YMA had put ''many details of their relationship'' into the public domain.

Editors argued that it was therefore in the public interest if an account of the man's ''sexual exploits with others'' was published.

Lord Justice Jackson said both the man and YMA had disputed that ''publication of the story would serve any public interest''.

''They denied that the article was relevant to any public debate,'' said Lord Justice Jackson in the March ruling.

''They maintained that they had not courted publicity about their private life. They said that the various press articles about them were substantially true. They had been in a relationship for many years. The relationship was an open one.

''YMA accepted that from time to time the claimant had sexual encounters with others. The relationship between the claimant and YMA was one of commitment. They provided a loving home for their children.''

Lord Justice Jackson said he had concluded that the human rights balance fell against the newspaper.

''If the (newspaper) publishes the proposed story, this will not set the record straight in any material respect. It will simply reveal that one feature of the claimant's and YMA's long-term relationship is that the claimant is allowed to have occasional sexual encounters with others. That would provide supplementary information, but it would not correct a false image,'' said Lord Justice Jackson.

''I accept that the claimant is a public figure. This therefore exposes him to comment and criticism in the media.''

But he added: ''On the other hand ... 'kiss and tell' stories about a public figure which do no more than satisfy readers' curiosity concerning his private life do not serve the public interest.''

Lord Justice Jackson went on: ''The proposed story, if it is published, will be devastating for (PJS) ... There is also the position of the children to consider. The proposed article would generate a media storm and much public interest in the claimant's family.

''There would be increased press interest in the claimant's and YMA's family life. The children would become the subject of increased press attention, with all that that entails. Furthermore, even if the children do not suffer harassment in the short-term, they are bound to learn about these matters from school friends and the internet in due course.''

Lady Justice King said she agreed.