Here's how it works. Someone gets wind that a newspaper is going to publish something about them, probably because it has approached them for a comment. They apply to court to stop publication, on the grounds that the information was obtained in breach of a confidentiality agreement. However it takes time for both sides to prepare their cases and for court time to be allocated, so in the meantime the judge grants a temporary injunction to prevent publication until the case can be heard.

I don't know whether the legal proceedings are still going ahead, there would seem little point now the information is in the public domain. However when Hain made his statement a case was due to be heard, and the matter was then sub judice.

One of the possible outcomes of a court hearing is that the court, or a subsequent appeal court, might have advanced the law by deciding that NDAs cannot be used to silence allegations of this nature. Hain's intervention may have prevented that.