On what basis did the UK courts prevent the media from publishing stories on Philip Green&#39;s behaviour?
<p>Allegations of various sorts of inappropriate behaviour were made by several employees of Philip Green. These claims were settled and the settlements included NDAs. There is no allegation that these NDAs were improperly obtained (i.e. proper legal advice was obtained by the employees).</p>

<p>The media were prevented from revealing Philip Green's name by an injunction. (I don't know how they found out about it, perhaps that is relevant). Lord Hain used parliamentary privilege to reveal that the stories were about Philip Green and consequently the press are now free to talk about it.</p>

<p>My question is: given that the NDAs were between the employees making the allegations and Philip Green on what basis did the courts prevent the media from revealing his name? They were not party to the NDAs so surely cannot be bound by their terms. Presumably I'm free to tell my friends if I think its Philip Green, what's the difference? Could he take out an injunction against me?</p>

<p>For the purposes of this question please ignore the rights and wrongs of the NDAs or the use of parliamentary privilege.</p>

<p>As far as I know, this was a preliminary injunction. In a case like this, if making a correct decision to grant an injunction or not would take long time, and it's likely that the damage would be done by the time of the injunction, a preliminary injunction can be granted with less careful checking of the evidence - there's not much damage if such an injunction is lifted a week later, but much damage could be prevented if the injunction is granted. </p>

<p>It is difficult to be certain without seeing the judgement (which is not public for obvious reasons) but I suspect the relevant law is s9(1)(d) of the Defamation Act which allows <a href="https://saracenssolicitors.co.uk/uncategorized/why-injunctions-rare-defamation-act-cases" rel="nofollow noreferrer">injunctions</a> to prevent the publication of defamatory statements. Presumably thee was sufficient doubt in the minds of the judges about the veracity of the allegations that they considered them to be defamatory.</p>

<p>The NDAs are irrelevant to this. </p>

<p>You are <em>not</em> free to tell your friends you think it’s any identifiable living person unless what you are telling them is true - objectivity true. And, yes, he could take out an injunction against you.</p>

united-kingdom defamation non-disclosure