issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 090 (2025)
08.04.2025
Use of parliamentary privilege to disclose confidential information, no violation
of privacy rights in case concerning well-known businessman
the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
The case concerned the question of whether States have a duty to take measures to prevent
parliamentary privilege being used to circumvent a court injunction. In 2018 the applicant in the case,
Philip Nigel Ross Green, a well-known businessman, was granted an interim injunction against the
Telegraph group to prevent it from identifying him as the subject of allegations of sexual harassment
and bullying made by former employees. Invoking parliamentary privilege, a member of the House of
Lords took the floor of the House after a debate and identified Mr Green as the subject of the
allegations, despite the interim injunction.
The Court found that it should be left to the respondent State, and Parliament in particular, to decide
on the controls required to prevent parliamentary members from revealing information subject to
privacy injunctions. To find otherwise would run contrary to the principle of the autonomy of
Parliament, which had already considered and rejected the need for further controls.
Principal facts
The applicant, Philip Nigel Ross Green, is a British national who was born in 1952 and lives in Monaco.
He is a well-known businessman and was chairman of the Arcadia Group, a multinational retail
company which owned a number of major high street brands, including Topshop.
In July 2018 Arcadia was contacted by a journalist from the Telegraph Media Group Limited, who
intended to publish an article on allegations that Mr Green had sexually harassed and bullied former
employees. Mr Green had previously reached settlements with the former employees known as non-
disclosure agreements (“NDAs”).
Mr Green, Arcadia and Topshop went to the courts, seeking an injunction to prevent the Telegraph
from publishing material disclosed to it in breach of confidence. They also sought an interim injunction
preventing disclosure pending trial.
The High Court refused the interim injunction, but the Court of Appeal subsequently granted it, as well
as anonymity orders, to protect the confidentiality of the material in the NDAs pending an expedited
trial. It examined in detail the Convention rights relevant to the case (the claimants’ rights under
Article 8 and the Telegraph Media Group’s rights under Article 10) and concluded that publication
would cause immediate, substantial and possibly irreversible harm to all of the claimants, including
the applicant.
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any
party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers
whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the
referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
