A court stops the story of sexual harassment published by Telegraph

Copyright of the image
Jennifer Scott

A "prominent business man" has won a legal battle to stop the claims of harassment of a newspaper by a newspaper.

Three judges of the Court of Appeal have obtained an injunction to prevent the Daily Telegraph from publishing its article.

The judges said that the five staff members at the origin of the claims had been "compromised by settlement agreements" and had received "substantial" payments to remain silent.

Theresa May would not comment directly on the case, but said some companies were using such agreements "in an unethical way".

Ms. May said that confidentiality agreements, or NDAs, should not silence whistleblowers. She added that the government would take steps to ensure that employees know their rights.

A Labor MP stated that NDAs were used by the rich and powerful to do "whatever they wanted".

The publisher of the Telegraph stated that the public "has the right to know when the powerful are trying to gag the most vulnerable".

• The #MeToo claims that can not be revealed & # 39;

The paper said it spent eight months investigating charges of intimidation, intimidation and sexual harassment against the businessman.

According to the newspaper, the publication of these accusations "would revive the #MeToo movement against the mistreatment of women, minorities and others by powerful employers".

However, after the newspaper contacted the chief of the accused for his comments in July, a number of his associates sought an injunction to prevent the publication of this information.

"Breach of trust"

In August, a High Court judge refused to grant the gag order.

Judge Haddon-Cave stated that the information was "clearly capable of contributing significantly to the debate in a democratic society" and "to make a contribution to the current debate in the public interest on the faults committed at the workplace ".

However, the executive and its officials appealed the decision, claiming that the details of the allegations had been "disclosed as a breach of trust", with the five staff members having signed confidentiality agreements.

On Tuesday, the judges of the Court of Appeal – Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson – issued a decision in favor of the businessman.

He reported allegations of "misconduct", but said the newspaper was aware of the confidentiality agreements signed by the accusers, in which they agreed to keep the details "confidential".

Copyright of the image
Pennsylvania

The Telegraph said the ruling made "illegal disclosure of the identity of the businessman or companies, as well as what he is accused of doing or the amount that he or she He paid his alleged victims "pending a full hearing early next year.

According to the newspaper, NDAs have been used commercially to protect the confidentiality of commercial information, but some fear that they will be abused to conceal wrongdoing and deter potential victims of crime from traveling to the police.

On Wednesday, during Prime Minister's questions, Ms. May refused to comment directly on the court's decision.

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

She added that the government would consult with each other as to whether the Non-Disclosure Agreement Regulations could be improved to ensure that employers and employees are informed of when an NDA does not apply or can not be implemented. applied.

Labor MP Jess Phillips told the House of Commons: "It seems our laws allow rich and powerful men to do just about anything they want, as long as they can pay for it to stay that way. quiet."

Copyright of the image
Pennsylvania

Contracts under the spotlight

By Clive Coleman, Legal Correspondent of the BBC

Copyright of the image
Getty Images

The Harvey Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo movement shed light on the abusive use of nondisclosure agreements by powerful individuals.

Concerns have reached Parliament, with the Women and Equals Commission saying that they have been "unfairly used by some … to silence victims of sexual harassment".

But this case is different.

The Court of Appeal stated that there was no evidence that any of the DNAs resulted from intimidation, harassment or undue pressure, and each employee received independent legal advice before signing it.

In addition, two of the staff members who laid the charges against the businessman supported the injunction.

It may sound strange, but it's not unusual, because some people, even the victims, do not want a problem at work to follow.

NDAs are just contracts. If they are concluded freely, with appropriate legal advice, the courts are reluctant to untie them.

Those used by powerful rich to gag the alleged victims are a major concern, but this does not seem to be a good example of this type of abuse.

However, it is likely that we will see many more cases of this type because the press will continue to fight and fight where it thinks that it is in the public interest to support an NDA.