The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously rejected a legal challenge by Sir Philip Green to stop parliamentary privilege being used by UK politicians to disclose the name of individuals protected by court injunctions.
In 2018, the billionaire, who was chairman of the Arcadia retail group, was named as the man at the centre of the “British #MeToo” scandal, after the Daily Telegraph was prevented by an injunction from naming the executive accused of sexual and racial harassment of staff who had signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).
Philip Green and NDAs
Sir Philip Green named as businessman in sexual and racial harassment scandal
The use of NDAs in employment disputes amid the #MeToo movement
Presidents Club scandal: Is there any value in non-disclosure agreements?
Lord Peter Hain unveiled Green’s identity under parliamentary privilege saying it was his duty to name him, given the “serious and repeated” nature of the allegations.
Green “categorically and wholly” denied allegations of “unlawful sexual or racist behaviour”.
In Strasbourg last month, Green’s legal team argued that the UK, as a member of the European Convention on Human Rights, should ensure that parliamentary privilege is not used to circumvent court orders.
However, seven judges in Strasbourg today unanimously found there had been no violation of the right to privacy under Article 8 of the convention.
By a majority ruling, judges also found Green’s complaints under Article 6, the right to a fair hearing, and Article 13, the right to effective remedy, inadmissible.
The ECHR judgment said: “In keeping with the well-established constitutional principle of the autonomy of Parliament, it is in the first instance for national parliaments to assess the need to restrict conduct by their members.”
It explained that since the UK Parliament was “aware of the problem of parliamentary privilege being used to frustrate injunctions and has addressed the need for further controls”, the ECHR considered that “for the time being” it may be left to the UK state to determine the necessary controls to prevent MPs and peers from revealing information subject to privacy injunctions. The court considered that the need for appropriate controls must be kept under regular review at the domestic level.
Lord Hain said Green’s case was a “barefaced attempt to suppress” democratic protections, adding: “Sir Philip is utterly shameless. He should be apologising for bullying and abusive behaviour towards his employees, not trying to cover it up.”
Green’s legal team have three months to decide whether to appeal to the ECHR’s Grand Chamber for a final ruling.
Green’s reputation was previously damaged by the collapse of British Home Stores after he sold the chain for £1 in 2015 to a consortium led by Dominic Chappell, a businessman who had previously been declared bankrupt. In 2017, he agreed with the Pensions Regulator to offer a cash settlement of £363 million to plug the gap in the BHS pension scheme caused by the chain’s collapse.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR roles in retail and wholesale on Personnel Today
Browse more HR roles in retail and wholesale
