‘I’m done with these rich men hiding you away’ – MP Phillips vows to fight gagging order on ‘victims’ of top boss
BIRMINGHAM MP Jess Phillips has urged victims to contact her after a mystery businessman won a high court injunction preventing a national newspaper from reporting allegations against him.
Ms Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, claimed that she was “done with these rich men using our laws to hide you away”.
The Daily Telegraph lost the latest round of a free speech fight with the company boss.
The businessman, whose identity remains shrouded in mystery, is accused of “discreditable conduct”.
Three Court of Appeal judges barred the newspaper from publishing “confidential information”.
It came after analysing rival arguments at a hearing in London.
But Ms Phillips has vowed to help fight the gagging order.
She said: “I don’t know his name so I cannot name him.”
But she added: “I plan to find out as much as I can about the case, hope that victims would seek me out if I can offer some sort of cover, and make sure that, whatever I do, I don’t damage them.”
Under Parliamentary privilege, Phillips would have legal immunity against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties – for example, naming the businessman in the House of Commons.
The unnamed businessman, a senior executive in a company group, plus managers at two companies in the group, took legal action in a bid to stop the Telegraph publishing a story.
A High Court judge had refused to gag the newspaper in August.
But the executive and managers at the two companies mounted a challenge and three appeal judges have overturned Mr Justice HaddonCave’s decision.
Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson have outlined their decision in a ruling.
They said five employees of companies in the group had made allegations of “discreditable conduct” by the executive.
In all five cases complaints had been “compromised by settlement agreements” under which “substan- tial payments” were made to employees who had complained.
Both sides had undertaken to “keep confidential” the subject matter of complaints.
The three judges had overseen a Court of Appeal hearing in September and published a ruling on Tuesday. The appeal judges have not named anyone involved, apart from the newspaper.
They named the claimant executive and companies as “ABC & others”.
Judges said a Daily Telegraph journalist had contacted the “claimants” in July wanting comments on a story the newspaper was proposing to publish.
They said the reporter was aware of agreements to “keep confidential” the subject matter of the complaints – “non-disclosure agreements”.
Judges said the claimants felt that the information had been disclosed to the newspaper by one or more of the complainants, or by other employees who were aware of the information and of the non-disclosure agreements”.
They said the claimants immediately commenced litigation and asked for an injunction preventing the Telegraph publishing “confidential” information which had been “disclosed in breach of confidence”.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave concluded that publication of the information was “clearly capable of significantly contributing to a debate in a democratic society” and “making a contribution to a current debate of general public interest on misconduct in the workplace”.
The judge had decided that publication of the information would be in the public interest.
But appeal judges said Mr Justice Haddon-Cave had “left entirely out of account” the “important and legitimate role” played by non-disclosure agreements.
“There is no evidence that any of the settlement agreements were procured by bullying, harassment or undue pressure by the claimants,” said the appeal judges’ ruling.
“Each settlement agreement records that the employee was independently advised by a named legal adviser.”
The ruling added: “The effect of each of the settlement agreements was to put an end to existing or potential litigation and enabled the employees to receive substantial payments.”
Appeal judges said there was a “real prospect” that publication would cause substantial and possible irreversible harm to the claimants.