MPs blasted a multi-millionaire businessman after he paid £500,000 to get a gagging order banning the revelation of his alleged bullying, racism and sexual harassment.

Judges granted it after hearing five of his staff got payouts to stay silent.

11 The businessman payed out £500k in legal fees to remain anonymous Credit: Getty - Contributor

Labour MP Jess Phillips said: “It can’t be right the rich can buy silence.” Judges were accused of plunging Britain back into the Dark Ages.

Campaigners said the granting of a gagging order over claims made against the ­multi-millionaire by five staff members was a disaster for free speech.

Writer and campaigner Mick Hume said: “It’s going back to a dark age when the rich and powerful could keep scandals secret.

“The consequences of the ruling for UK Press freedom look grim.”

11 Theresa May refused to comment on the matter Credit: AFP

Media lawyer Mark Stephens also criticised the Appeal Court order, saying: “It’s an appalling decision.

“It sends out a message that the rich can buy themselves freedom from scrutiny.”

The tycoon spent an estimated £500,000 in legal fees to win an injunction stopping the Daily Telegraph publishing the allegations.

The workers had signed non-disclosure agreements and accepted “substantial” payouts from him.

11 Lawyers acted in 2011 for Ryan Giggs to win a super-injunction which banned reporting of his affair with Imogen Thomas Credit: Getty Images - Getty

The judges ruled the signing of the agreements overrode the public interest in exposing the businessman’s “discreditable” behaviour.

The case has been described as “a British #MeToo moment” — a reference to the flood of allegations in America following the revelation of film mogul Harvey Weinstein’s serial sexual harassment.

The identity of the tycoon was the subject of the usual speculation on social media, where injunctions are routinely flouted.

There were also rumours an MP could use Parliamentary immunity from prosecution to name the businessman in the Commons.

11 Lord Justice Henderson ruled in favour of the businessman Credit: � UPPA/Photoshot. All rights reserved.

News of the gagging order triggered an angry reaction among politicians of all parties.

Jess Phillips, who chairs the Women’s Parliamentary Labour Party, said: “It cannot be right that the rich can buy silence.”

Tory Bob Seely tweeted: “Concerned about injunctions, used against a free press.

11 News of the gagging order triggered an angry reaction among MPs Credit: Alamy

“There’s an argument MPs use Parliamentary privilege to undermine these injunctions on principle, when in the public interest, so their use by the rich and powerful becomes redundant.”

Independent MP Frank Field added: “I would hope that any of the parties who had concerns about this would contact the Women and Equalities Select committee, which is looking into the use of NDAs, as a matter of urgency.”

PM Theresa May refused to comment directly on the case.

But she told the Commons: “Sexual harassment in the workplace is against the law.

11 Media lawyer Mark Stephens criticised the Appeal Court order and said it was an appalling decision Credit: Getty Images - Getty

“Such abhorrent behaviour should not be tolerated.

“Non-disclosure agreements cannot stop people from whistleblowing but it is clear some employers are using them unethically.”

The court battle over the publication of the allegations has been going on for months.

In August, a High Court judge refused to grant a gagging order.

11 MPs have blasted the millionaire businessman Credit: Alamy

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said the information was “clearly capable of significantly contributing to a debate in a democratic society” and “making a contribution to a current debate of general public interest on misconduct in the workplace”.

But the executive and his managers appealed.

On Tuesday the three Appeal Court judges, Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson, ruled in the businessman’s favour.

He is thought to have paid at least £500,000 in legal fees to win the court order — on top of the payments to staff.

11 In August the High Court had refused to grant a gagging order for the businessman Credit: Getty - Contributor

The executive is represented by top London law firm Schillings.

Its lawyers acted for Manchester United legend Ryan Giggs in 2011 to win a super-injunction, which banned reporting of his affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas.

Schillings was also involved in an effort by football superstar Cristiano Ronaldo to gag a former lover.

Three of the five staff members in the current case had made complaints using “internal grievance procedures”. Three later filed employment tribunal claims.

11 Theresa May did not comment but she did say that such abhorrent behaviour should not be tolerated Credit: Getty Images - Getty

Two of the staff supported the tycoon’s bid for an injunction. Both wanted to preserve anonymity.

The judges said there was no evidence anyone had been pressured into signing the deals.

Each individual had taken independent legal advice.

In March 2011, the RBS bank boss Sir Fred Goodwin gagged The Sun to prevent us running a story about an affair.

11 The identity of the tycoon was subject of the usual speculation on social media Credit: Alamy

But later that month, then Lib Dem MP John Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to reveal how Goodwin had sought an injunction.

Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham then disclosed in the Lords that Goodwin’s injunction was to stop the reporting of a sexual relationship. High Court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat later granted a partial lifting of the injunction.

He said Goodwin’s QC had said he “did not wish to persuade the court to continue the anonymity” he had been granted.

Katie Couric admits #MeToo allegations against former co-host Matt Lauer are heart breaking

Mr Hemming joined those criticising the granting of the tycoon’s injunction. He said: “When the legal system becomes a tool of the rich it’s very dangerous.

“The counter-argument to this becoming public seems to be that it would render NDAs worthless.

“I would simply say, ‘Would that be such a bad thing?'"

MOST READ IN UK NEWS SEE THE SPIKE Burnley now England's new Covid hotspot - so how does YOUR town compare? Exclusive GRIM FIND Cadaver dogs smell HUMAN REMAINS by Carole Baskin's missing husband's lake house WHERE WERE THE PARENTS? Sobbing toddler found wandering Hull streets completely ALONE PANIC STATIONS Panic buying sweeps country AGAIN clearing Tesco, Asda & Morrisons' shelves Exclusive HAPPY MEAL McDonald’s worker who paid for lad’s meal has secretly bought food for MONTHS PACKED OUT Pub curfews cause social distancing CHAOS as 1,000s spill onto streets at 10pm

'A weapon for celebs'

11 Juventus star Cristiano Ronaldo and US porn star Stormy Daniels

A WELL-KNOWN socialite who believes she was a victim of the gagging-row tycoon last night accused him of groping her.

In an anonymous first-person account, she said: “He loved that I was scared.”

She claimed the businessman secretly slid his hand under her dress as he chatted to her and her boyfriend at a party.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, the woman said: “Having his sweaty hand beneath my skirt was repulsive, but it was the power play involved that was the worst thing. He loved that I was scared.

“In fact I’ll bet a lot of the enjoyment for him was knowing that I would be too scared to say anything.

"That, not the handful of flesh, was what he was getting off on. And I still hate that I was too scared to say anything.”

She told her boyfriend that night and he said she should have confronted the tycoon.

But she added: “Like Harvey Weinstein, this wasn’t a man you went up against.”

The Telegraph said because of the injunction against the newspaper, it could not tell her if the man she accuses is the gagging-row tycoon.

Non-disclosure agreements are being used as a weapon by the rich and famous to gag victims and cover up bullying and sexism claims, experts said last night.

Such NDAs — commonly known as ­confidentiality or gagging agreements — are legitimately used in business to protect confidential matters like takeovers.

But they are increasingly being employed by celebrities and the super-rich to mask sexual wrongdoing.

Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein allegedly used NDAs to silence women. For two decades British PA Zelda Perkins kept her silence over alleged sexual harassment she reportedly suffered at his hands and claims she felt pressured to sign an NDA.

Cristiano Ronaldo is accused of hiring lawyers and private detectives to persuade an ex to accept over £300,000 and sign an NDA to stop her revealing their relationship.

She has now accused him of rape, which he denies.

Hostesses working at the scandal-hit President’s Club Dinner for top businessmen in London were allegedly given just seconds to study a five-page NDA before they started working at a fund-raising dinner this year.

Illeana Douglas reacts to the Harvey Weinstein scandal and women speaking up against sexual harassment in Hollywood

An undercover investigation revealed many women were groped there. Meanwhile leaked papers showed staff at film star Leonardo DiCaprio’s company were not permitted to speak of “the existence of the contractor’s business and/or personal relationship with DiCaprio”.

A former lover of actor Charlie Sheen also claims she was coerced into signing an NDA. The woman sued the actor last year for failing to tell her he was HIV positive before they had unprotected sex.

He claims he told the woman about his diagnosis when they met and she signed the agreement before they had sex.

Porn star Stormy Daniels signed an NDA and was paid £100,000 by Donald Trump’s ex-lawyer in a bid to keep her quiet over an alleged affair. The President initially denied all knowledge of it.

Josephine Van Lierop, principal lawyer at Slater & Gordon, told The Sun: “The use of NDAs is as common as always, but the #MeToo movement has shone a spotlight on them and how they may have been part of the problem in society not stamping out sexual harassment.”

Earlier this year the Women and Equalities Committee in Parliament urged a clean-up of NDAs after a six-month review of workplace sexual harassment.

Rumours online By Tom Wells SOCIAL media was last night awash with speculation regarding the ­identity of the tycoon at the centre of the “British #MeToo” scandal. In 2011, ex-footballer Ryan Giggs was named online des­pite winning a super- injunction to hush up a fling. Other bans are still in force despite their subjects being widely known. In 2011, a married Premier League star won an injunction after saying he feared “cruel chants” if his affair emerged. In the same year a married top actor won a gagging order after allegedly paying a woman for sex. Both were widely named on social media. In June, outgoing Supreme Court judge Lord Mance admitted that internet gossip now rendered many injunctions pointless.