In a significant ruling for parliamentary free speech, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has dismissed a legal challenge by Sir Philip Green aimed at curtailing the right of MPs and peers to disclose protected information under the longstanding shield of parliamentary privilege.
The retail tycoon brought the case after Lord Hain used the protection of privilege in 2018 to name him in the House of Lords as the businessman behind allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and racist abuse. At the time, Green had obtained an injunction in the High Court preventing the media from identifying him, despite multiple settlements reportedly totalling millions of pounds having been paid to five former employees.
Investigating the case at the time, The Telegraph was legally gagged from naming him, in a move that many saw as the wealthy using the courts to suppress serious allegations in the public interest.
It was against this backdrop that Hain stepped in, citing what he described as a moral duty to uphold transparency and accountability.
Later reporting by The Telegraph claimed that Green had paid two former staff members around £1 million each following accusations that he groped a female employee and racially abused a Black member of staff. In total, five complainants signed non-disclosure agreements (NDA) in return for the payouts, according to the paper’s investigation.
Green’s legal team argued that the UK had failed in its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to ensure that parliamentary privilege is not used to bypass judicial orders, thereby infringing his right to privacy under Article 8.
But in a unanimous ruling, eight judges in Strasbourg found no violation of Green’s privacy. In a clear affirmation of the principle of subsidiarity, under which domestic constitutional arrangements are given primacy in matters of parliamentary self-regulation, the court held that it was “for national parliaments to assess the need to restrict conduct by their members”.
A majority also dismissed his claims under Article 6 (the right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy) as “inadmissible”.
The ECtHR is the judicial arm of the Council of Europe and is based in Strasbourg, France. It interprets the ECHR, which has force in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998.
Parliamentary privilege is a centuries-old constitutional doctrine, enshrined in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which states that “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. It exists to protect democratic deliberation – including the right of elected representatives to speak freely without fear of legal reprisals – and has long been viewed as a cornerstone of the UK’s unwritten constitution.
Green’s lawyers insisted they were not attempting to strike down privilege itself, but rather to challenge the lack of safeguards when it is used to disclose confidential material, such as the contents of injunctions or non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). But critics saw the case as part of a broader trend of litigious elites attempting to weaponise privacy law and injunctions to stifle scrutiny and suppress uncomfortable truths.
Lord Hain described the case as a “barefaced attempt to suppress” democratic protections, adding: “Sir Philip is utterly shameless. He should be apologising for bullying and abusive behaviour towards his employees, not trying to cover it up.”
Green denies all allegations and has previously branded his naming in Parliament “outrageous”. But the ECHR judgment reaffirms what UK courts have consistently upheld: parliamentary privilege is absolute and immune from legal challenge on grounds of privacy, reputation or commercial confidentiality.
The ruling is likely to be welcomed by press freedom campaigners, who have warned in recent years of an erosion of open justice through strategic litigation, super-injunctions, and the use of NDAs to shield powerful individuals from scrutiny.
