Philip Green named to Parliament as a businessman who gagged the media for publishing allegations of sexual harassment

Sir Philip Green has been designated as the "leading businessman" to have obtained a confidentiality injunction to prevent the media from publishing the allegations of former employees.

The 66-year-old Arcadia group president, who includes fashion labels such as Topshop and Dorothy Perkins, was nominated by a peer using parliamentary privilege.

Lord Hain, a Labor Party colleague, told the House of Lords: "I have been contacted by a person closely involved in the business of a powerful business man using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal its actions. [allegations] repeated and severe sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying.

"I believe it is my duty, under parliamentary privilege, to appoint Philip Green as an individual in question, as the media was subject to an injunction precluding publication of all the details. of a story that is clearly in the public interest. "

The representatives of the Arcadia group did not immediately answer the question. L & # 39; independent & # 39;s request for comment.

On Tuesday, the court of appeal granted the company a temporary injunction barring the appointment of Sir Philip, his company or other details of the case pending a full trial.

"We are aware that any delay in publishing public issues is not desirable," said judges. "This can be achieved to a certain extent, in this case, by ordering a speedy trial."

The judgment indicated that out of five plaintiffs in the case, two supported Arcadia's decision to gag Telegraph, including the one who wanted to protect their privacy.

Sir Philip was appointed the day after the Prime Minister was questioned about the case in the House of Commons.

Jess Phillips, Labor MP for Birmingham Yardley, said the British laws seemed to "allow rich and powerful men to do what they want as long as they can pay to keep them silent."

Ms. Phillips asked Theresa May whether she supported the use of non-disclosure agreements "to silence women victims of sexual harassment and those who have been victims of racial violence."

The Prime Minister stated that she could not comment on the current case, but added: "Just as we will not accept any behavior that causes people to feel intimidated or humiliated about their behavior. workplace, non-compliance with the law must have consequences.

"Non-disclosure agreements can not prevent people from reporting, but it is clear that some employers use them in an unethical way."

She added that the Government would consult on measures to improve the regulation of agreements and to "make it absolutely explicit" where they do not apply or can not be applied.

The Court of Appeal has prohibited The telegraph of the day to publish allegations of "misconduct" of five employees and to appoint the accused officer.

The Arcadia group immediately sought an injunction when the newspaper asked for a comment on an article revealing the details of the allegations and how they were treated on July 16.

Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson confirmed a gag order requested by a senior executive of a group of companies, as well as by the officers of two group companies.

They found that the complaints had been "jeopardized by settlement agreements" under which "substantial payments" had been made to the employees who had complained.

Both parties were committed to "keeping confidential" the subject of the complaints contained in the non-disclosure agreements, which had been violated by the plaintiffs who had spoken. Telegraphsays the judgment.

NDAs are widely used by companies seeking to protect their trade secrets and confidentiality, but there is concern that they may not be used to hide wrongdoing and silence the media.

The Court of Appeal issued an interim injunction quashing the August ruling by a High Court judge who refused to prevent the information.

Judge Haddon-Cave stated that the information was "reasonably credible", that there was no "reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality" and that much of the information that the newspaper wished to publish were already in the public domain.

He concluded that the publication of information was "clearly capable of contributing significantly to the debate in a democratic society" and "to contribute to the current debate of general interest on wrongdoing at work".

The judge said that in his opinion, the publication of the information would serve the public interest.

But the appellate judges said that Judge Haddon-Cave "totally ignored" the "important and legitimate role" played by DNA.

"There is no evidence that any of the settlement agreements were obtained by intimidation, harassment or undue pressure from the plaintiffs," their decision said.

"Every settlement agreement records that the employee has been independently informed by an appointed legal counsel."

Les juges ont ajouté: «Chacun des accords de règlement a eu pour effet de mettre fin aux litiges existants ou potentiels et a permis aux employés de recevoir des paiements substantiels… le véritable problème est de savoir si, à la lumière de tous les faits pertinents, une violation de la confidentialité est justifiée dans l'intérêt public. "

Les juges d’appel ont déclaré que les éléments les plus graves des allégations, qui avaient été rejetés, ne relevaient pas du domaine public et qu’il était «vraisemblable» que cette publication cause un préjudice irréversible aux entreprises concernées «en raison de la réaction défavorable de la clientèle».

Le procès mettra en balance l'intérêt public et le préjudice commercial, ainsi que les droits de l'homme à la vie privée et la liberté d'expression.

L'ancien député libéral démocrate John Hemming avait déjà utilisé le privilège parlementaire pour révéler l'existence de super-injonctions accordées à l'ancien chef de la Royal Bank of Scotland, Fred Goodwin, et nommer Ryan Giggs comme le footballeur qui avait bâillonné la presse sur son affaire.

Le privilège parlementaire confère aux membres de la Chambre des communes et des lords une immunité juridique leur permettant de s'acquitter de leurs tâches sans ingérence.

Le scandale Giggs et une vague de controverses sur la protection de la vie privée en 2011 ont déclenché des appels à une réforme juridique. Des députés et des militants ont déclaré que les pratiques interdisant aux médias en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles de publier des affaires rapportées en Ecosse, dans d'autres pays et sur les médias sociaux étaient dépassées et injustes.

Un rapport de hauts magistrats a déclaré que les superinjonctions – qui interdisent les rapports sur leur propre existence – avaient été utilisées trop fréquemment et que la technologie moderne était "totalement hors de contrôle".

Des appels ont également été lancés pour limiter l’utilisation des NDA à la suite du mouvement «Me Too», après qu’il a été révélé que le magnat du film honteux Harvey Weinstein les avait déployés pour garder les victimes présumées silencieuses.

Ils ont également été utilisés en politique, avec des chiffres révélant que la Chambre des communes avait dépensé plus de 2,4 millions de livres sterling au travers des NDA au cours des cinq dernières années.