The “witness x” whose evidence was never heard in the Oscar-winning actor Geoffrey Rush’s defamation battle against the Daily Telegraph is Hollywood actor Yael Stone.

The Telegraph had sought to admit Stone’s evidence towards the end of their unsuccessful two-week defamation battle against Rush in November last year.

At the time justice Michael Wigney rejected it because of the delay it would cause in the trial had the potential to cause “manifest and palpable” prejudice against Rush.

He also made orders for a suppression of Stone’s identity and the details of her claim against Rush. But before an application arguing against the suppression was due to be heard in the federal court on Friday, the parties agreed to lift the suppression on Stone’s identity.

Wigney said on Friday that “by the consent of all parties” the suppression of “the disclosure and publication of the identity of the prospective witness” had been vacated.

In an interview with the New York Times in December, Stone – best known for her role as New Jersey inmate Lorna Morello in the Netflix series Orange Is the New Black – alleged that, during a 2010 Belvoir St theatre production of The Diary of a Madman, Rush held a mirror above her while she showered, danced naked in front of her and touched her back in an “unwanted” and “very sensual manner”.

She repeated those allegations to the ABC’s 7.30 program, and alleged that during the production Rush invited her back to his apartment in a “very physically intimate way”.

“There was no mistaking what that invitation meant,” Stone said to host Leigh Sales.

In a statement issued through his lawyers at the time, Rush said Stone’s allegations were “incorrect and in some instances have been taken completely out of context”.

“However, clearly Yael has been upset on occasion by the spirited enthusiasm I generally bring to my work,” he said. “I sincerely and deeply regret if I have caused her any distress. This, most certainly, has never been my intention.

“When we performed in The Diary of a Madman eight years ago, I believe we engaged in a journey as artistic comrades. Over the years we have shared correspondence that always contained a mutual respect and admiration.

“As I have said in the past, I abhor any behaviour that might be considered as harassment or intimidation to anyone – whether in the workplace or any other environment.”

In April, following a two-week trial last year, Wigney found in favour of Rush and ordered the newspaper’s owner, News Corp, to pay more than $850,000, with the prospect of millions more, finding the newspaper defamed him by alleging he “engaged in inappropriate behaviour” during a theatre production of King Lear.

This week the Telegraph filed an application to appeal the judgment on the basis that Wigney’s conduct during the trial “gave rise to an apprehension of bias”.

On Friday, lawyers for Rush and the Telegraph agreed for a temporary injunction against republication of some of the allegations made against Rush.

In a fiery hearing, Rush’s lawyers accused the Telegraph of engaging in a “campaign” against the court and “attacking the vindication” of the actor after his defamation win against the newspaper last month.

Rush’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, accused the newspaper of engaging in a “campaign against, with respect, the court, but with the effect of attacking the vindication my client received a month ago” since the judgement.

She accused the newspaper of “doubling down on the fact that they are true”.

“There’s no public interest in allowing them to continue spreading falsities,” she said.

An application for a permanent injunction will be heard later this month.