The Victorian Court of Appeal on Monday refused property developer John Woodman's application for leave to appeal an earlier Supreme Court ruling dismissing his request to stop the release of the report.
The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission was expected to released its Operation Sandon report this week, but Mr Woodman could still seek to take further action in the High Court.
Mr Woodman was publicly examined across six days of public hearings as part of IBAC's probe into corrupt conduct involving councillors and property developers in the City of Casey.
The corruption watchdog heard Mr Woodman or his companies donated to several Labor MPs and the Liberal Party ahead of the 2018 election.
Lawyers for Mr Woodman claimed the public examinations caused "unreasonable damage" and part of his evidence should have been given in private.
"There was no invitation to challenge the decision," said his barrister Gerard Nash KC.
Under the IBAC Act, an examination cannot be held in public unless there are "exceptional circumstances" and it is in the public interest.
Public hearings can also be held when they won't cause "unreasonable damage" to a person's reputation, safety or wellbeing, or the witnesses' conduct may be seriously or systematically corrupt.
Justice Cameron Macaulay asked why Mr Woodman's lawyers didn't submit an injunction to the Supreme Court when it became clear the hearings were causing reputational damage.
Mr Nash conceded he would have done so if he had of been representing Mr Woodman at the time.
Mr Woodman last year successfully launched a Supreme Court bid to stop the watchdog from tabling its final report into Operation Sandon, claiming it breached procedural fairness requirements.
The court agreed and ordered IBAC to provide footnotes supporting adverse findings made against Mr Woodman, allowing him additional time to respond to the draft report.
Justice Macaulay questioned why the scope of Mr Woodman's initial claim didn't cover his public hearings complaint.
"In 2022 you were complaining about the fruit of a public examination process namely a draft report, when it now appears you maintain the public examination process should never have occurred," he said.
"So you complained about the fruit in 2022; now you say the plant should never have been planted."
Mr Nash replied: "Perhaps, your honour, I didn't realise the tree was rotten."
Justice Richard Niall said the reasons for the Court of Appeal's decision would be published either later on Monday or Tuesday.
Lawyers for Mr Woodman declined to comment.
IBAC has been contacted for comment.
28°C