A court rejected the complaint of the SIR Philip Green businessman concerning the name of the Parliament with regard to the allegations of misconduct reported by a newspaper.
The former Topshop boss launched the case after a Labor Paying told the House of Lords that the magnate had used a court order to prevent the telegraph from publishing a story about allegations.
The parliamentary privilege gives deputies and peers the absolute freedom of expression and their comments can be reported without threat of legal action.
On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Sir Philip’s human rights were not violated when he was appointed to the Chamber of Lords in 2018.
The injunction of the Sir Philip court prevented the telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct, including sexual and racial abuses and intimidation, against five employees.
The ex-employees agreed to keep the details of their confidential complaints under the non-disclosure agreements.
But the allegations were finally reported after the peers of Lord Hain’s work revealed that Sir Philip was at the origin of the injunction in October 2018, using parliamentary privilege.
In a declaration at the time, Sir Philip “categorically and entirely” denied being guilty of “illegal sexual or racist behavior”.
Sir Philip has already accused the telegraph of “Pursuing a Vendetta” against him and his staff.
In a complaint filed in April 2019, SIR Philip lawyers told the judges in Strasbourg that Lord Hain’s declaration had violated the claim against the futile telegraph, violating his right to a fair trial and breaking his right to privacy.
The businessman’s lawyers have challenged the absence of controls on the power of parliamentary privilege to reveal information covered by an injunction.
On Tuesday, a panel of eight judges ruled against Sir Philip, finding his right to privacy under article 8 of the Convention had not been raped.
The majority of judges also found that its complaints filed under article 6, the right to a fair hearing, and article 13, the right to an effective remedy, were “inadmissible”.
The judges said that national parliaments “are better placed than the international judge to assess the need to restrict the conduct of a member.”
They added “the court would require strong reasons to replace its point of view from that of Parliament”.
After the decision, Lord Hain said: “I am really happy that the Strasbourg Court defended the parliamentary privilege and my right to have appointed Sir Philip.”
He also accused the businessman of “resorting to all kinds of specious legal twists and turns” and said he should “start behaving respectfully”.
Downing Street defended the principle of parliamentary privilege following the court’s decision.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “The parliamentary privilege is a fundamental and established principle of our constitutional arrangements and it is just that he protects freedom of expression in Parliament and, more generally, the right of each house to regulate his own affairs.”
