[ad_1]
Sir Philip Green and his business empire Arcadia ended their lawsuit against The Telegraph after the newspaper reported allegations of badual and racial harbadment against him.
The Court of Appeal's judges temporarily banned the newspaper from identifying the Topshop mogul or revealing "confidential information" relating to allegations of misconduct by five employees.
The Telegraph responded by publishing an article on an anonymous "important business man" shortly before former minister Peter Hain uses parliamentary privilege to appoint Green to the House of Lords two days after the decision of the court of October, which resulted in allegations.
Arcadia announced on Monday that it would abandon the case, which was due to be litigated next month: "After much thought, Arcadia and Sir Philip have reluctantly concluded that There was no need to continue the litigation, which had already been jeopardized The deliberate and irresponsible actions of Lord Peter Hain, paid consultant to Telegraph lawyers Gordon Dadds, are likely to cause even more distress to Arcadia employees.
"As a result, Arcadia and Sir Philip will seek leave of the court to terminate the proceedings on Monday."
Despite the end of the lawsuit, Arcadia accused the Telegraph of leading a campaign to "deliberately facilitate non-compliance with confidentiality agreements", exposing those who signed them and causing "indescribable disruption" to 20,000 employees.
"The Telegraph repeatedly contacted and harbaded staff and former employees of Arcadia and BHS. His journalists went door-to-door to many people, often at night, causing distress and worry to their family, just last weekend, "said the company, confirming that a complaint had been filed with the IPSO regulator.
Green was represented by the defamation firm Schillings, whose lawyers were criticized during a preliminary hearing before the high court last week for charging up to £ 690 for the hour for their work in this case. Judge Warby ordered the lawyers to reduce their costs, noting that Schillings had already submitted a £ 470,000 invoice for the work of the witness statements alone, compared to £ 80,000 spent by the Telegraph for the same part of the work.
Green could now end up with a large legal bill amounting to millions of pounds, knowing that he had already spent £ 500,000 last October.
Last week, the businessman's lawyers announced to the judge that they were going to seek redress from the Telegraph for Hain's decision to appoint Green to Parliament, saying the newspaper was "directly or indirectly responsible" for the reason. have provided the information to his Labor counterpart.
This decision, which could have endangered the principle of parliamentary privilege, prompted the judge to write to Lord Low Fowler, fearing that this might have repercussions on the 1689 Bill of Rights, which guaranteed the free declaration of parliamentary debates.
It is believed that the Lords commissioner investigated the standards of his conduct, as he worked as a consultant for Telegraph lawyers, Gordon Dadds.
At the time of his statement, the politician had stated that he had been contacted by a person "intimately involved" in the case and had felt that it was his duty to use parliamentary privilege to identify Green, insisting that he was completely unaware "that Gordon Dadds was working on the file". Case.
Source link
