His identity became central to the case after prosecutors alleged an accused man threatened to expose details of an alleged past private relationship involving him during a property‑settlement dispute.
Justice James Henry on Friday found a non-publication order was necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.
"Such offences rely for their success on the fear of publicity they invoke in their target," Justice Henry said in a decision published on Friday.
"MM (the high-profile man) was one of those other persons and his identity had been revealed in court.
"It follows that a failure to prohibit publication of information leading to his identification in connection with the case - thus allowing a feared part of the exposure to occur - would deter future prospective complainants from coming forward to complain of similar crimes."
Justice Henry agreed it was "well open" to the magistrate in May to conclude the non-publication order was necessary, not only to protect the complainant but the high-profile man too.
The married public figure is not accused of wrongdoing and is not a party to the criminal proceeding.
The accused is charged with extortion involving domestic violence.
Prosecutors allege he threatened to reveal the information unless his former partner accepted a financial settlement $15,000 lower than originally agreed.
The accused has not been convicted and the allegations have not been tested in court.
Media organisations challenged the non‑publication order, arguing it went further than necessary because MM was neither a complainant nor a witness in the extortion proceeding and that it undermined open justice.
Police argued publication could cause distress and allow the court process to achieve the outcome said to be threatened in the alleged extortion.
The dispute began after MM was named during a Cairns Magistrates Court hearing on May 29, before an interim non‑publication order was made.
Acting Magistrate Gelma Meoli later imposed broader restrictions, finding that identifying MM could publicly achieve the very outcome at the centre of the extortion allegation.
The Queensland crime and corruption commission has confirmed to a parliamentary committee that the watchdog has received a complaint and is currently assessing the matter.
