Sir Philip Green case: What you need to know
What is a non-disclosure agreement? What is parliamentary privilege? And can the billionaire really lose his knighthood?
Friday 26 October 2018 16:48, UK
Greg Heffer, political reporter
Topshop owner Sir Philip Green has been named as the businessman behind an injunction against a national newspaper.
Labour peer Lord Hain used parliamentary privilege to identify the billionaire in the House of Lords on Thursday.
The Daily Telegraph reported earlier in the week that an unnamed businessman had been granted an injunction to prevent them revealing alleged sexual harassment and racial abuse of staff.
Sir Philip - who owns the Arcadia Group of high street brands including Topshop, Topman, Burton and Dorothy Perkins - has said he "categorically and wholly denies" allegations of "unlawful sexual or racist behaviour".
Amid calls for the 66-year-old to be stripped of his knighthood if the claims are true, Sky News looks at the details of the case.
What is a non-disclosure agreement?
Commonly known as NDAs, non-disclosure agreements are legal contracts often used by companies to preserve confidentiality.
If the contract is breached, the party breaking the agreement could be liable for damages in the form of hefty financial compensation.
Last year, an ex-assistant of US movie mogul Harvey Weinstein described how she signed an NDA with a £125,000 ($165,200) financial settlement to keep quiet about allegations of sexual harassment.
Zelda Perkins later told a committee of MPs the NDA was "morally lacking on every level".
Numerous claims against Weinstein helped spark the #MeToo movement. He has denied all allegations of non-consensual sex.
In the House of Commons on Wednesday, Prime Minister Theresa May refused to comment on "a particular case that is currently before the courts".
But she told MPs it is "clear" some employers are using non-disclosure agreements "unethically".
Mrs May said the government will look at ways to improve rules around non-disclosure agreements and make it "explicit" to companies when they cannot be used.
Andrew Secker, employment lawyer and legal commentator and Mills & Reeve, predicted the #MeToo movement would not spell the end for NDAs.
But he said: "Employers wishing to send a message about its values may increasingly need to consider if keeping the allegations confidential is in their best interests.
"Attempts to gag employees risk being seen as evidence of a concern that the allegations are true or, perhaps worse, that it is prepared to protect those who harass staff by hushing up allegations of this type."
What is parliamentary privilege?
Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for members of both the House of Commons and House of Lords.
It is in place to ensure MPs and peers can go about their work without fear of being sued or prosecuted for contempt of court.
Media lawyer Mark Lewis told Sky News: "The bill of rights that came into force 330 years ago says that what's said in parliament is absolutely privileged. Nobody can sue on it, nobody can be prosecuted on it.
"In a way it's arrogant of Peter Hain to have used parliamentary privilege to break and injunction.
"He's said 'I think I am more important than three Court of Appeal judges who have heard the evidence'.
"What I think a parliamentarian should have done is said 'the law isn't right, we're parliament, we change the law, judges follow the law that we change'; rather than focussing on an individual case."
Critics of Lord Hain have also highlighted how, in their assessment about granting the injunction, the Court of Appeal noted two of the complainants in the case had supported the application for the allegations to remain private.
Judges wrote how there would be a "high risk" of them being identified if the Daily Telegraph "publishes particulars relating to their allegations".
Is the injunction still in place?
Yes, technically. Mr Lewis explained: "The injunction is still in place, technically it would be a contempt of court. You have Lord Hain saying in the House of Lords who he believes it is.
"No one from the Daily Telegraph has confirmed that yet, so we're in this very 'Alice in Wonderland' position where everybody knows, everybody's talking about it.
"But technically you're in contempt of court if you say there is an injunction obtained by Sir Philip Green."
But Mr Lewis added it is "inevitable" the injunction would soon be lifted.
"I would expect the Daily Telegraph's lawyers will go into court and say - with some force - that this injunction should go," he said.
Has parliamentary privilege previously been used to get around junctions?
In 2011, an order granting anonymity to ex-Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) boss Fred Goodwin was lifted at the High Court.
It came after then Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming made knowledge of a super-injunction public using parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons.
The super-injunction, which usually bans the media from reporting even the existence of a court order, was said to relate to a "sexual relationship".
Later that year, Mr Hemming again used parliamentary privilege to name Ryan Giggs as the footballer identified on Twitter as having an injunction preventing publication of allegations he had an affair with a former reality TV star.
Also in 2011, as a debate about the use gagging injunctions continued to rage, TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson lifted an injunction banning the publication of details of his private life after claiming it was "pointless".
The former Top Gear host claimed "injunctions don't work" in the "legal-free world on Twitter and the internet".
However, in 2016, the Supreme Court extended a privacy injunction preventing the identification of a celebrity who had been involved in a three-way sexual encounter.
This is despite a judge noting how many of the details had already been published on the internet and on social media.
Can Sir Philip Green lose his knighthood?
In the summer of 2016, the Cabinet Office revealed Sir Philip's knighthood was "under review" following a controversy over the collapse of BHS, the department store chain which had been part of the businessman's Arcadia Group.
MPs passed a symbolic vote to strip Sir Philip of his knighthood in October that year, following a debate in which Labour MP David Winnick called him a "billionaire spiv".
However, he clung on to the honour after agreeing to pay £363m in cash to rescue the BHS pension fund.
The Cabinet Office would not comment on Thursday on whether it would review Sir Philip's knighthood.
Mr Goodwin, who was heavily criticised over the collapse of RBS, had his knighthood removed in 2012.
The forfeiture committee, which has a majority of independent members and is chaired by a top civil servant, makes recommendations for honours to be revoked.
The Queen has the sole authority to rescind a knighthood, after taking advice from the government.