A British businessman was given a restraining order for sexual harassment and racial abuse against him in a case branded as #MeToo.
The Daily Telegraph was prevented by three judges of the Court of Appeal from publishing "confidential information" about a company boss accused of "discreditable behavior".
A report said Tuesday's ruling had prevented the national newspaper from "alleged sexual harassment and racial abuse of personnel."
The newspaper said allegations against the businessman that could not be identified sure to revive the #Metoo movement against the mistreatment of women by powerful employers.
The head of the company was described in today's edition of the Telegraph as a "leading businessman".
He filed a lawsuit alongside a senior executive in a group of companies and managers in two companies in the group (1
But the executive and managers of the two companies had a contest and three appellate judges have now overturned Judge Haddon -Caves decision.
Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson delivered their verdict, stating that five employees of companies in the group had allegations of "discreditable behavior" by the executive.
Total In five cases complaints were "compromised by settlement agreements" in which "substantial payments" were made to the defendant employees.
Both sides had committed to "keep secret" the subject (19659002) The three judges conducted a hearing before the Court of Appeals in September and issued a ruling on Tuesday.
The three appeals judges did not name anyone but the newspaper.
You have named the plaintiff managing director and companies as "ABC & others".
Judges said a Daily Telegraph journalist contacted the plaintiffs in July to comment on a story the newspaper intended to publish.
You said the reporter was aware of the agreements to "keep secret" the subject of the complaints. "Confidentiality agreements".
The judges said the plaintiffs felt the information was "communicated to the newspaper by one or more of the complainants or other employees who were aware of the information and the confidentiality agreements".
You said that the plaintiffs immediately filed litigation and filed a preliminary injunction preventing the Telegraph from publishing "confidential" information.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave had decided that the plaintiffs had not done so. He showed that information that the Telegraph wanted to publish had been obtained in breach of confidentiality agreements.
He said the information was "reasonably believable", there was no "rea
He concluded that the publication of the information" was clearly capable of making a significant contribution to a debate in a democratic society "contribute to a current debate on the general public interest in misconduct in the workplace."
The judge ruled that publication of the information would be in the public interest.
But the appeals judges said that Judge Haddon-Cave had "completely ignored" the "important and legitimate role" of the secrecy arrangements.
"There is no evidence that any of the Settlement Agreements were brought about by bullying, harassment, or undue pressure from claimants," said the Appellate Court decision.
"Each settlement agreement reports that the employee was advised independently of a reputable legal advisor."
The ruling added: "The effe Each of the settlement agreements should put an end to existing or potential litigation and allow employees to make substantial payments
Appellate judges stated that there was a "real prospect" that the publication would inflict considerable and potentially irreversible damage on the plaintiffs.
They granted "an injunction to speed the confidentiality of information up to a full trial should be addressed."
The Telegraph said in its report that the court order granted by appeals judges it prevented her from disclosing "alleged sexual harassment and racist abuse of staff".
The report added, "Secrecy agreements have frequently been abused to conceal misconduct and prevent victims of potential crimes from going to the police."
It went on to say, "The Telegraph has spent the past eight years months, in which the allegations of bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment against the businessman were investigated. "
The newspaper said the appeal judge's decision makes them" illegal "o disclosure of the identity of the businessman or identification of the companies, as well as what he is is accused or how much he has paid his alleged victims.
Sir Terence is the master of the Rolls and the second oldest judge in England and Wales.
The appeals court has ordered that the matter "progresses to a rapid process," the newspaper said.
Reporting by the Press Association.