The judge who heads the country's most senior court said the existence of the internet limits the chances that privacy orders can be enforced.

Remarks by Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, were published yesterday just as the married celebrity was given until 10am today by Appeal Court judges to challenge – in the Supreme Court – their decision to lift his injunction.

Lord Neuberger said: 'The law should never seek to acknowledge or enforce rights which are in practice unenforceable.'

Remarks by Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, were published yesterday just as the married celebrity was given until 10am today by Appeal Court judges to challenge – in the Supreme Court – their decision to lift his injunction

His views were delivered to an audience of lawyers in Edinburgh on Saturday night, after three Appeal Court judges in London had heard the pleas for and against the lifting of the celebrity's threesome injunction.

The Supreme Court president said technology had posed a series of challenges to the legal profession, and that 'developments in IT have greatly increased the tensions between personal privacy and freedom of expression.'

He added: 'As lawyers, we are steeped in the notion that the law is not merely based on principle, and that practicality is just as important. That tradition should stand us in good stead when we face up to dealing with the problems as lawyers or judges.

'I suggest that it is also close to inevitable that developments in technology will change our attitude to privacy.

'The existence of the internet inevitably affects what can be practically achieved in terms of enforcement of privacy, and the law should never seek to acknowledge or enforce rights which are in practice unenforceable.'

Privacy injunctions were developed by judges under European human rights rules after the government led by former Prime Minister Tony Blair made them part of British law with the Human Rights Act.

Ruling: Lord Justice Jackson (centre), Lady Justice King (left) and Lord Justice Simon (right) delivered their judgement dressed in the civil gown, along with yellow bands to illustrate their status as Appeal Court judges

Three Appeal Court judges in London heard the pleas for and against the lifting of the celebrity's threesome injunction

By 2011, it had become regular practice for judges to set down injunctions preventing newspapers, magazines and broadcasters from publishing information, usually about the sex lives of those who called on the courts for privacy.

But a key case in 2011 was that of footballer Ryan Giggs, whose privacy injunction preventing publication of stories about an extra-marital affair was undermined by widespread social media speculation. Ultimately, an MP named him in the House of Commons – whose members' words can be freely reported – which wrecked the injunction.

The threesome case was covered up by a privacy injunction in January, but earlier this month a US newspaper published a full account of the sexual encounter and its participants.

The news was rapidly spread across social media and the internet, and was notably reported by a prominent blog concerned with British politics.