Lord Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne tweet that they are NOT the businessman who got an injunction to gag race abuse and sexual harassment claims

Alan Sugar hit out at "trolls" linking him to the story
Oli Scarff/Getty Images
Jacob Jarvis25 October 2018

Alan Sugar took to Twitter today to say he is not the anonymous businessman granted an injunction preventing the Daily Telegraph from publishing sexual harassment and racial abuse claims.

Business mogul and The Apprentice star Lord Sugar posted a message distancing himself from the situation on Twitter on Wednesday.

He wrote: “To all those t***** trolls associating me with the Daily Telegraph injunction by a celeb. I have no idea who that person is, but I certainly know it is NOT me.”

His message has since been liked almost 2,000 times.

Businessman Duncan Bannatyne has also said he is not the executive who has been granted an injunction.

Responding to a tweet that said he "seems the type", he wrote: "Nope, not me."

The front page of Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph stated a “leading businessman” had been granted an injunction against the publication.

It has been banned by three Court of Appeal judges from publishing “confidential information" with regards to a company boss accused of “discreditable conduct”.

A report said the injunction, approved on Tuesday, has prevented the national newspaper revealing “alleged sexual harassment and racial abuse of staff”.

The paper said accusations against the businessman, who remains anonymous, would reignite the #MeToo movement.

Lord Sugar said he does not no who it is but that it is not him

Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson outlined their decision in a ruling.

They said five employees of companies in the group had made allegations of “discreditable conduct" by the executive.

In each of the cases complaints had been "compromised by settlement agreements".

“Substantial payments" were made to the employees who had complained, with both sides undertaking to “keep confidential" in regards to the accusations.

A Court of Appeal had been heard in September and a ruling published on Tuesday.

The three appeal judges named the newspaper but not anyone else involved.

The claimant, executive and companies were named as “ABC & others".

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in