The undermining of the privacy (interim)in¬junction is a further blow to the retail magnate whose reputation was badly damaged .......

Who cannot make any response as yet, because he is bound by the courts injunction.
Were those that took the money now bound to pay it back?

Back in 2011 Lord Judge, observed: “It is, of course, wonderful for you if a member of parliament(or the Lords) stands up in parliament(or the Lords) and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

But you do need to think whether it’s a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament.”

If the executive find fault with decisions of the court, it is up to them to change the legislation in order the Judicial interpretation
meet with their requirements.

It is worth recapping the nature of the man that made the exposure:

1)Lord Hain, 68, the former Labour cabinet minister who named the Topshop tycoon last week by invoking parliamentary privilege, faced potential accusations of hypocrisy after he insisted on confidentiality in a settlement involving a defamation claim against him by a Scotland Yard detective.
2) Lord Hain is on a retainer for perhaps the largest legal company in the UK, yet makes no attempt to enquire within as to a possible conflict of interest should they perhaps be representing the Telegraph.
3)Courtesy of Guido we can clearly see the names of the three judges and the lawyers and their companies on the front page of the widely circulated injunction. For Hains to claim he did not know of the link one is forced to conclude he either did not see the document or is perhaps telling porkies. Perhaps he may claim again to be incompetent, as he did when he was forced to resign from the cabinet Does not say much for his attitude to due diligence does it?

It does make the white night more than a little tarnished!


The public trial of Phillip Green