By James Simons-
A Court of Appeal ruling has barred the Telegraph publication from revealing allegations that a ‘leading businessman’ sexually harassed and racially abused employees The judgement will spark debate as to the fairness of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in settlements.
Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson granted a temporary injunction preventing the Telegraph from publishing what the newspaper says is the result of eight months of investigation into the behaviour of an individual identified as ‘ABC’.
Only last month Mr Justice Haddon-Cave refused an injunction following an in camera High Court hearing. That refusal has now been overturned, again calling to question the competence of judges in giving the correct judgments . On the face of it, one of the judges clearly is not up to scratch with their knowledge of law.
The businessman in question used NDA’s to prevent employees who suffered sexual and racial abuses from telling their stories publicly. In the High Court, Justice Haddon-Cave concluded that “in all the circumstances, the public interest in publication outweighs any confidentiality attaching to the information”.
The case concerns allegations from five employees of a senior executive’s ‘discreditable conduct’ which led to settlement agreements. According to the Court of Appeal judgment, the agreements included undertakings to conceal the subject matter of the complaints ‘and various associated matters, including the amounts paid by way of settlement’. However, the Court of Appeal has come to a different conclusion:
The judgment states: ’There is no evidence that any of the settlement agreements were procured by bullying, harassment or undue pressure by the claimants’, and that each employee received independent legal advice. It notes that NDAs play an ‘important and legitimate’ role in the consensual settlement of disputes. The judgement also placed contractual obligation
The businessman has spent close to £500,000 to keep his identity quiet. The Telegraph strongly oppose the decision and believe powerful people should not be able to use their wealth and influence to shut people up. Especially not in cases of misconduct of this sort. The case continues in the new year.