Secrecy storm as businessman gags Press over sex harassment

A WEALTHY businessman was accused of ‘buying silence’ yesterday after it emerged he had gagged a newspaper over sexual harassment and racial abuse claims.

The senior company executive won a court injunction to stop the paper revealing his name or details of the claims of abuse against staff.

Five former employees signed controversial non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in which they agreed to remain silent over the claims.

The #MeToo movement has raised concerns such NDAs have been used to silence and pay off victims of sexual exploitation and harassment, while Theresa May has said some employers were using them ‘unethically’.

The British businessman at the centre of the court injunction row agreed ‘substantial payments’ with his alleged victims, three of whom dropped employment tribunal claims as part of their settlements.

As speculation mounted on the internet as to the identity of the businessman, Labour MP Jess Phillips threatened to use Parliamentary privilege to name him, if one of his accusers contacted her.

Mrs Phillips, who chairs the Women’s Parliamentary Labour Party, said the injunction amounted to the rich being able to ‘buy silence’. She said: ‘It seems our laws allow rich and powerful men to pretty much do whatever they want as long as they can pay to keep it quiet.’

The businessman was identified in court papers only as ‘ABC’ and was said to be a ‘senior executive’ in a group of companies.

Five employees made allegations against him of ‘discreditable conduct’, which was reported to involve sexual harassment and racial abuse.

Each signed separate NDAs which included an undertaking to remain silent over their accusations, and the amount they had been paid to keep quiet.

The Daily Telegraph said it learned of the secret deals while investigating claims of bullying and intimidation by the executive. It spent eight months investigating the man following a tipoff about his behaviour towards women, but he then sought a court injunction to prevent the newspaper from publishing.

The Telegraph reported that the man had spent almost £500,000 in legal fees.

An application in July was refused after High Court judge Mr Justice Haddon- Cave ruled the Telegraph’s information was ‘credible’ and ‘in the public interest’. But the businessman and two companies involved appealed against the decision and on Tuesday the Court of Appeal granted an interim injunction.

Three judges ruled the information was likely to have been passed to the paper in breach of the NDAs.

The judges acknowledged the public interest in the case, including the freedom of political debate and Press freedom, and ‘public concern about misbehaviour in the workplace as well as the legitimacy of non-disclosure agreements’.

But they ruled that any publication risked ‘immediate, irreversible and substantial harm to the claimant companies due to adverse customer reaction’.

In their lengthy judgment, the judges said the row should be settled at a full civil trial, to be held as soon as possible.

The injunction is likely to remain in place until such a trial can be held. Legal sources said this is unlikely to be until early next year.

The furore over their ruling was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, prompting Mrs May to say the Government would examine regulation over NDAs.

The PM said: ‘Sexual harassment in the workplace is against the law. Such abhorrent behaviour should not be tolerated.’

She added: ‘There must be consequences for failing to comply with the law. Non- disclosure agreements cannot stop people from whistle-blowing but it is clear some employers are using them unethically.’

Tory MP Maria Miller, chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, said: ‘It’s really important that NDAs are not used to cover up serial offenders’ conduct when they are a danger to others.’

The Society of Editors criticised the decision as having a chilling effect on Press freedom. Director Ian Murray said: ‘The increasing use of NDAs by the rich and powerful to block publication of any information they do not wish to be aired in public is a dangerous road for a free society to travel.’

NDAs have been under scrutiny since it emerged that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein used them to keep alleged victims quiet.

Dozens of women have accused him of sexual harassment and assault, which he denies.

So much for Britain’s reputation as the cradle of Press freedom. in an extraordinary judgment, the Appeal Court has banned a newspaper from identifying a prominent businessman said to have a history of sexually and racially abusing staff.

Never mind that it’s clearly in the public interest to warn would-be employees of the treatment they may expect. Forget that the Daily telegraph says it spent eight months collecting evidence, including testimony from five victims.

The judges ruled that because the whistleblowers voluntarily signed nondisclosure agreements (NDAS) in return for compensation, the paper could not publish their stories.

In other words, the victims’ contractual duty to keep silent about their alleged abuser – who is said to have spent £500,000 seeking the injunction – trumped the public’s right to know.

Is this really a country in which the rich can buy legal protection from having their misdeeds publicly exposed? if so, the law on NDAS urgently needs to change. Meanwhile, this iniquitous injunction cannot be allowed to stand.