Theresa May has promised to crack down on non-disclosure agreements after a top British businessman gagged the press from revealing how he allegedly racially abused and sexually harassed staff in a new MeToo scandal.

The Prime Minister said she would bring forward consultation measures to improve regulation and make it 'absolutely explicit' when the contracts cannot be enforced.

'Non-disclosure agreements cannot stop people from whistleblowing, but it is clear some employers are using them unethically,' she told the Commons on Wednesday.

It is claimed the executive, who cannot be named, used controversial non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to pay off his alleged victims with 'substantial sums'.

But yesterday, The Daily Telegraph was prevented from revealing details by senior judge Sir Terence Etherton and two other appeal judges.

Mrs May told the House it was clear that some companies were using NDAs 'unethically'

After being asked about NDAs in the House of Commons today, Theresa May said some employers were using non-disclosure agreements 'unethically' and hit out at 'abhorrent' sexual harassment in the workplace.

Labour MP Jess Phillips told the Prime Minister: 'It seems that our laws allow rich and powerful men to pretty much do whatever they want as long as they can pay to keep it quiet.'

She asked whether Theresa May agreed with the court's decision.

Mrs May said she could not comment on the ongoing case, but insisted the government is working to tighten regulation of NDAs.

The Prime Minister said: 'Sexual harassment in the workplace is against the law. Such abhorrent behaviour should not be tolerated and an employer that allows that harassment to go un-dealt-with is sending a message about how welcome they [women] are.

MP Jess Phillips brought up the issue in Parliament today, saying 'rich men' can 'pretty much do whatever they want'

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

It had been thought that Ms Phillips would use parliamentary privilege rules, which mean MPs cannot be prosecuted for statements made in Parliament, to name the man at the centre of the case.

But today the Birmingham MP shied away from revealing the name.

She then tweeted later that she did not know the name of the person.

The decision to prevent publication was slammed by those campaigning against the use of NDAs to cover up wrongdoing.

Zelda Perkins, Harvey Weinstein's former aide, broke an NDA from the 1990s to allege sexual harassment. She told The Telegraph it was 'ridiculous' they had been prevented by reporting the allegations.

She said: 'NDAs have become weaponised. They were originally very useful things to protect commercial property and company secrets which, of course, is fair enough.

'But, in terms of them being used for anything else, there has to be legislation to stop that.

'There is no place for NDAs at all around any of these types of misdemeanours. If that protection is available then it perpetuates that sort of behaviour'.

A leading British businessman has been granted an injunction preventing the revelation of alleged sexual harassment and racial abuse of staff, it was revealed today

How Weinstein's PA was silenced by order Harvey Weinstein's former assistant Zelda Perkins (pictured) signed a non-disclosure agreement after trying to stop the disgraced film mogul's sex abuse 20 years ago. Ms Perkins took action in 1998 after a colleague at his film company Miramax said Weinstein had tried to rape her. She said she thought that reporting his alleged abuse to the firm's family-friendly parent company Disney would result in his dismissal. Instead, she was warned against speaking out – and both women quit their jobs at Weinstein's London office after signing agreements forbidding them to discuss the incident. 'I was made to feel like I was in the wrong for trying to expose his behaviour,' she said earlier this year. Advertisement

Ms Perkins added fewer people 'would be putting their hands up someone's skirt if they knew that they didn't have a get out'.

The Court of Appeal judgment was the latest chapter in a legal saga which began in July this year. The decision overturns a previous High Court ruling which found the allegations to be in the public interest.

NDAs, also known as gagging orders, are typically used in business to protect confidential business matters such as proposed takeovers.

But there are widespread concerns they are now being misused to cover up wrongdoing and stop potential crimes being probed by police.

Maria Miller, chair of the Commons Women and Equality committee, said it was 'shocking' that NDAs were still used to gag victims.

She told The Daily Telegraph they should not be used 'where there are accusations of sexual misconduct and wider bullying'.

If named, accusations against the businessman could breathe new life into the Me Too movement which highlighted the mistreatment of women by powerful employers.

The campaign shook the world last year after disclosures about Harvey Weinstein, the American film producer, brought a cavalcade of allegations against public figures.

Zelda Perkins, former personal assistant to Harvey Weinstein, said non-disclosure agreements were being 'weaponised' and used to give wrongdoers impunity

Previous injunctions hit by publication abroad Court injunctions gagging publication of certain details have previously been undermined by foreign magazines and newspapers making the cases public. Last year, The Sunday Times was prevented from publishing hacked emails between David Beckham and his PR. However, publications in Germany, France and other European countries were not affected and went ahead with the publication. The order was later varied to allow The Times to report matters which were already in the public domain. The outcome was different however in 2016, when British publications were barred from reporting a celebrity couple's involvement in a three-way sexual encounter. Despite the full details being published in the US and Canada, the UK Supreme Court maintained the privacy injunction, ruling that publication in the UK would constitute further breaches of the rights of the couple's children. Advertisement

The judgement by Sir Terence, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, makes it illegal for The Daily Telegraph to divulge the businessman's identity.

Neither can it be revealed what he is accused of doing or how much he paid his alleged victims as part of the gagging order.

The businessman in question has hired a team of at least seven lawyers and spent close to £500,000 in legal fees in the Court.

He is represented by Schillings, the legal firm which has worked with Cristiano Ronaldo, Lance Armstrong and Ryan Giggs. Each of these stars also has a history of using NDAs to mute claims of wrongdoing.

In a 32-page ruling published yesterday, the Court of Appeal simply refers to the businessman as 'ABC'.

The claims are classified as 'discreditable conduct' and the interim injunction order states five cases received 'substantial payments' as part of NDAs.

However, The Telegraph told the Court of Appeal there is a clear public interest in publishing the allegations to warn prospective employees. But the Court has ruled against the newspaper.

The campaign shook the world last year after disclosures about Harvey Weinstein, the American film producer, brought a cavalcade of allegations against public figures.

What are non-disclosure agreements and why are they controversial? Non-Disclosure Agreements is a catch-all term for agreements that include confidentiality clauses – sometimes referred to as gagging clauses. They are meant to be used to stop confidential information like trade secrets leaking out when someone leaves a company or organisation. But they have sparked a storm of criticism as employers have often used them to cover up improper conduct and gag their former employees. They have often been used by employed to gag those who make allegations of sexual harassment. They have also been used to cover up improper, discriminatory or even illegal behaviour. Parliament's women and equalities committee, headed by Tory MP Maria Miller, is investigating how they work and whether they are being misused. Advertisement

The earlier High Court ruling, which allowed the businessman to be named, found that publication of the allegations would contribute to debate in a democratic society.

Justice Haddon-Cave, a top terror judge, concluded 'in all the circumstances, the public interest in publication outweighs any confidentiality attaching to the information'.

But the Appeal Court judges Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson disagreed with the earlier decision.

The judgment said: 'We entirely endorse the [High Court] Judge's statements as to the importance of freedom of political debate, the right of freedom of expression, the essential role played by the press in a democratic society...and the important public concern about misbehaviour in the workplace as well as the legitimacy of non-disclosure agreements and other legal devices for 'gagging' disclosure by victims.

'The Judge has, however, left entirely out of account the important and legitimate role played by non-disclosure agreements in the consensual settlement of disputes, both generally but in particular in the employment field.'

The allegations would reignite the #MeToo movement in the UK, but a gagging order prevents the press from reporting on them