Publishers take their case to court of appeal after high court refuses to grant them last-minute 'stay'

Newspaper and magazine publishers have failed in their application for an injunction to prevent the government's plan for a new press regulation regime getting the royal seal of approval.

However, they intend to take their case to the court of appeal on Wednesday afternoon.

Industry bodies representing the publishers were granted an emergency high court hearing for an injunction at 10.30am on Wednesday, just hours before the government's press regulation royal charter – backed by the three main parties and Hacked Off campaigners – is set to go before the privy council for sealing by the Queen at 5.30pm on Wednesday afternoon.

Publishers were seeking to get an injunction to get a "stay" on the privy council sealing the government's royal charter until a decision on their application for a judicial review of the government's rejection of the industry's rival plan for a new press regulator has been taken.

They were also seeking a legal ruling that any decision to seal the cross-party charter can be automatically overturned if their judicial review succeeds.

The case for an injunction was heard by Lord Justice Richards and Justice Sales.

QC Richard Gordon, representing the publishers, described the process by which the industry proposed charter was considered as unfair and "Kafka-esque".

"This process was wholly legally defective, this was in all but name an executive roller coasting through of a [government] charter. If government policy is to ensure confidence of public and press you cannot simply ignore the views of the press or fair consideration of those views".

However, Richards disagreed the process was flawed or that the industry charter and views had not been properly considered.

"The claimant must have understood the issues to be addressed in their own petition and had fair opportunity to address them. I cannot see any realistic possibility a different procedure might have led to a different outcome."

He added: "The merits of the claimants case are at best weak. I would refuse permission to grant a judicial review and refuse application for an interim injunction."

The four industry bodies that applied for the injunction issued a joint statement expressing their disappointment at the high court ruling.

"We are deeply disappointed with this decision, which denies the newspaper and magazine industry the right properly to make their case that the privy council's decision to reject their charter was unfair and unlawful," they said.

"This is a vital constitutional issue and we will be taking our case for judicial review – of the privy council's decisions on both the industry charter and the cross-party charter – to the court of appeal."

Applications for the injunction and judicial review were filed at the high court in London on Monday.

The case for an injunction filed at the high court argued that the decision by a privy council subcommittee to reject the industry's proposed regulatory system underpinned by a royal charter was "wholly unfair, irrational and unlawful".

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said in a statement: "Both the industry and the government agree self-regulation of the press is the way forward and we both agree that a royal charter is the best framework for that.

"We are clear the process for considering the industry royal charter was robust and fair and the courts have agreed. We can now get on with implementing the cross party charter.

"A royal charter will protect freedom of the press whilst offering real redress when mistakes are made. Importantly, it is the best way of resisting full statutory regulation that others have tried to impose. We will continue to work with the Industry, as we always have, and recent changes secured by the culture secretary, to arbitration, the standards code and the parliamentary lock will ensure the system is workable."

Earlier this month the culture secretary Maria Miller announced that ministers were not going to consider the industry's royal charter, sticking instead with the charter agreed by the three main political parties and Hacked Off, which campaigns on behalf of victims of press intrusion, in March. This charter is due to be ratified by the privy council on Wednesday.

Miller has offered some concessions aimed at addressing publishers' concerns with the cross-party royal charter, but these have been dismissed as inadequate by the industry, which is also moving ahead with setting up its own new press self-regulator.

The injunction and judicial review has the backing of four trade organisations representing newspapers and magazines – the Newspaper Publishers Association, the Newspaper Society, the Scottish Newspaper Society, and the Professional Publishers Association – through the Press Standards Board of Finance (PresBof), the funding body for the existing industry regulator, the PCC. PresBof made the industry's original royal charter application.

Last week, newspaper and magazine publishers presented their final plans for their own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which would include a contract binding publishers to the watchdog's decisions. They said the new watchdog would have greater powers of investigation, enforcement and sanction than the discredited Press Complaints Commission, which it will replace.

Those supporting the injunction, judicial review and the creation of Ipso include the publishers of the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Mirror and Rupert Murdoch's News UK, publisher of the Sun and the Times.

Some newspapers have taken a neutral position on the legal challenge. The Guardian is part of the NPA, in common with all other national newspapers, but is neither supporting nor rejecting it.

Hacked Off executive director Brian Cathcart said:

"The big newspaper companies like the Mail and the Murdoch press have been in denial ever since the Leveson inquiry report condemned the way they treated ordinary people and said they needed to change.

"The inquiry judge has told them this. Their own readers – the public – have told them. Their past victims have told them. Every single party in parliament has told them. Now the courts have thrown out their latest manoeuvre.

"We have to ask: is there anyone at all that Rupert Murdoch and the other arrogant proprietors will listen to?

"The royal charter is good for journalism, good for freedom of speech, and – vitally – good for the public. What Mr Murdoch and his friends are clinging to is the right to lie, twist, bully and intrude, inflicting misery on innocent people. That has to stop."

A spokesman for bodies representing the newspaper and magazine publishing industry said: "We are deeply disappointed with this decision, which denies the newspaper and magazine industry the right properly to make their case that the privy council's decision to reject their charter was unfair and unlawful. This is a vital constitutional issue and we will be taking our case for judicial review – of the privy council's decisions on both the industry charter and the cross-party charter – to the court of appeal."

A DCMS spokesman added: "A royal charter will protect freedom of the press whilst offering real redress when mistakes are made. Importantly, it is the best way of resisting full statutory regulation that others have tried to impose. We will continue to work with the [press] ndustry, as we always have, and recent changes secured by the culture secretary, to arbitration, the standards code and the parliamentary lock will ensure the system is workable."

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@theguardian.com or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.