It has emerged that The Sun is involved in a third high-profile privacy legal fight – against a celebrity who wants to keep secret details of a legal complaint against him for sexual “misconduct”.
The high-profile individual settled an employment tribunal case brought against him by a former hairdresser in February. The judge in that case rejected a bid by the celebrity to keep details of the case secret.
- February 8, 2019
- October 30, 2018
- October 26, 2018
Last week an Employment Appeal Tribunal sided with the original judge and ruled against secrecy. The star is now set to take the case to the Court of Appeal with the interim gagging order still in place pending a decision on whether the case can proceed. href="https://meed.com/
The Sun is fighting two other secrecy orders at the moment. On Thursday, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the title can reveal details of a celebrity’s extra-marital threesome. And in another case, a woman being sued by her wealthy former lover for the return of money also has an interim secrecy injunction against the paper.
Before settling the hairdresser alleged unfair dismissal, unlawful sex discrimination and “allegations of sexual misconduct”.
Mrs Justice Simler ruled at the Employment Appeal Tribunal that details of the hairdresser case should allowed to be public.
She said in her judgment: “Mr Millar [lawyer for The Sun] submits that given RA is a well-known public figure, his behaviour as an employer against whom allegations of employee mistreatment and sexual misconduct have been made is a legitimate subject for public scrutiny.
“It seems to me (in agreement with the Employment Judge) that this is a matter of legitimate public interest in this case. The fact that allegations made by CA against the respondents to the underlying proceedings have been withdrawn on settlement does not mean that there can no longer be any public interest in the allegations of wrongdoing.
“There is no suggestion that CA now says the allegations were false from the outset (though that is the position of the respondents) and the fact that they are not pursued to a hearing does not mean that they are false and to be treated as never having been made.”