Quite likely the reason sub judice is not used is because the concept is now restricted to both houses of Parliament. Outside the house the revised laws on contempt of court supplant it and the expression is obsolete.

and yet again, as explained several times, and spelt out in detail some while back. There is agreement in both houses that matters before a court are not to be discussed in the house unless permission is previously sought from the respective speaker.
If a matter is not to be discussed in either house because judicial proceedings are ongoing it adds additional gravitas to putting details in the public domain by the device of Parliamentary Privilege.

Green may not make your Chrsitmas card list, but he is entitled to the same protection of the court as anyone else. If there is perceived to be a fault it lies with parliament and legislation, not with the courts.

My view is that Hains overstepped the mark for several reasons. It remains to be seen if the House will take any action.

Interestingly these "titivating" NDAs rarely last. The news gets out.
In Jeremy Clarkson's case he lifted the banning order himself. Continuance was futile once breached.