Sir Philip Green is reportedly to make a formal complaint against the Labour peer who exposed him as the businessman at the centre of sexual harassment allegations.
The Arcadia chairman was named by Peter Hain under protection of parliamentary privilege after taking out a temporary privacy injunction to prevent the media from publishing the claims.
It has since emerged that the law firm Gordon Dadds, which is acting for the Daily Telegraph in the case, employs Lord Hain as a global and governmental adviser.
Sir Philip now intends to complain to parliamentary authorities that Lord Hain failed to disclose he had a financial relationship with the Telegraph’s lawyers.
“I have been advised that his actions are likely to have been a breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct,” said Sir Philip.
”As many people have said Lord Hain’s blatant disregard of a judgment made by three senior judges is outrageous.
“If he hadn’t read the judgment, on what basis was he apparently talking about it. If he had, Gordon Dadds’ name is on the front page.
“I will be lodging formal complaints with the relevant authorities in the House of Lords.”
Sir Philip also repeated his statement that he “wholly and categorically” denies any allegation of “unlawful sexual or racist behaviour”.
Responding to the statement, Lord Hain said: “I always comply fully with my House of Lords obligations as I did on that occasion. Green’s ‘complaint’ is a malevolent diversion.
“I stand resolutely by what I’ve said and neither retract nor apologise for standing up for human rights against power, privilege and wealth.”
Lord Hain has been criticised by legal experts for naming the businessman in parliament while the case was still going through the courts.
Former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC said Lord Hain’s behaviour had been “clearly arrogant”.
The Conservative MP said the legal process had been turned into a “political witch hunt” and that parliamentary privilege was “open to abuse”.
He added: “I can’t see – looking at this particular matter – that Peter Hain can argue that he hasn’t abused it.”
Lord Hain said he felt he had a “duty” to name Sir Philip after being told that non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments were being used ”to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying”.
“I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising The Telegraph regarding this case,” he said. “Gordon Dadds, a highly respected and reputable international law firm, played absolutely no part whatsoever in either the sourcing of my information or my independent decision to name Sir Philip.
“They were completely unaware of my intentions until after I spoke in the House of Lords”
The identification of Sir Philip led to fresh calls for the Honours Forfeiture Committee to consider withdrawing his knighthood.
Downing Street stressed that the Honours Forfeiture Committee was independent.
“They are constantly reviewing evidence in relation to matters like this,” a Number 10 spokeswoman said.
Additional reporting by Press Association
