A legal challenge lodged by Sir Philip Green to curb parliamentary privilege to name individuals shielded by court injunctions has been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Eight ECHR justices ruled on Tuesday that Article 8 – “Right to respect for private and family life” – had not been breached.
The Strasbourg judges dismissed other complaints around the right to a fair hearing and the right to an effective remedy and that the case brought about by Sir Philip was “inadmissible”.
Sir Philip’s complaints relate to the former Arcadia chief being named in the House of Lords in 2018 as the individual accused in sexual misconduct allegations.
The Daily Telegraph had reported on a businessman who had allegedly used non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence staff and shut down accusations of bullying, sexual harassment and racial abuse – following an eight-month investigation.
Though the paper was constrained by an injunction from the Court of Appeal secured by the retail tycoon to protect his identity, parliamentary privilege allowed Lord Hain to name Green publicly.
Sir Philip’s legal team had argued that parliamentary privilege should not be used as a tool to get around court orders.
Hain has slammed the legal challenge as a “barefaced attempt to suppress” parliamentary privilege rules which were first enshrined in 1689.
The Labour peer and former Northern Ireland secretary described Green’s legal as “absolutely shameless,” adding: “He should apologise for bullying and abusive behaviour towards his employees, not trying to cover it up.”
Sir Philip denies the allegations, and slammed the original naming as “outrageous”.
In 2019, the House of Lords standards body rejected a complaint lodged by the former Topshop boss, after it emerged that Hain had worked as a paid advisor for Ince Gordon Dadds – the legal firm working with the Telegraph on its investigation.
That complaint was dismissed by then Lords standards commissioner Lucy Scott-Moncrieff.
The ECHR declared today that it is “for national parliaments to assess the need to restrict conduct by their members.”
