The third accused man in the bribery and corruption case involving Auckland public sector projects has lost a name suppression bid.

Milosi Toala, 54, is accused of using his position as a consultant to intentionally help Daud Nugroho Suryantyo to corruptly use or disclose information for commercial advantage.

Toala lost name suppression at Auckland District Court in May - but quickly appealed to the High Court.

But that bid for continued name suppression has been refused.

Suryantyo and Henry Semiti Rogo lost name suppression in May. They and Toala have all pleaded not guilty.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has alleged the accused men received about $3.5 million in public funds.

The Herald previously revealed a manager was accused of deceiving a council-controlled organisation and district health board and embedding his associate in those public agencies.

The projects included waterproofing and seismic assessments.

Auckland High Court on August 19 heard arguments for suppression from Toala’s lawyer Jeremy Bioletti.

He cited a potential impact on children of social media and bullying if Toala’s name was released.

He said apart from social media, “corporate media” would discuss the case and give it wider impact and “national-level exposure”.

The Herald at Auckland District Court previously argued Toala’s suppression bid was equivalent to an “elaborate ruse”.

Bioletti made arguments at the High Court relating to the Bill of Rights and said Toala’s family should be allowed to enjoy their culture.

“In the face of social media shaming that would be very difficult,” he added.

“The defendant has a private family ... What it’s going up against are all public entities.”

Bioletti added: “It’s not an equal match-up that we’re dealing with.”

Justice Mathew Downs asked about Toala’s circumstances and said what Toala was experiencing was simply true of many defendants in the dock.

Sam Wimsett, counsel for the SFO, said Toala had not supplied much evidence to justify his bid for name suppression.

Wimsett said Judge Claire Ryan at Auckland District Court had already decided Toala’s position did not amount to extreme hardship, and the evidence had not changed since that hearing

“There’s simply no evidence...that they will suffer extreme hardship.”

The judge reserved his decision at the time.