An injunction is keeping a UK #MeToo scandal from being published. The accused could still be named.

UPDATE: Oct. 25, 2018, 3:22 p.m. BST The Telegraph publishes article reporting businessman's name was revealed in parliament.

A "leading" British businessman has been granted an injunction order preventing a national newspaper from publishing allegations of "sexual harassment and racial abuse of staff."

According to an investigation by The Daily Telegraph, the allegations "would be sure to reignite the #MeToo movement against the mistreatment of women, minorities and others by powerful employers."

The injunction — ruled by the Court of Appeal on Tuesday — renders it illegal to disclose his identity or that of his businesses, how much he paid his accusers and the nature of the allegations. But, his identity could be revealed in parliament because of parliamentary privilege, which grants "certain legal immunities" MPs which enable them to "perform their duties without interference from outside of the House."

Per the court ruling, the injunction is an "interim injunction" which preserves "confidentiality" pending a full trial.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

The Telegraph reports that in the 20-page court ruling, the businessman is referred to simply as "ABC" and the allegations are characterised as "discreditable conduct." The injunction makes note of five "substantial payments" being made to five people as settlements or non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). The Telegraph drew parallels between this businessman and Harvey Weinstein's use of NDAs to pay off accusers.

Labour MP Jess Phillips tweeted two words which might suggest MPs plan to invoke parliamentary privilege during Prime Ministers' Questions on Wednesday.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Phillips also asked any survivors of the businessman's alleged offences to come forward to her. "I'm done with these rich men using our laws to hide you away," she said.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Following Phillips' tweets, many have lent their support to her, expressing their hope that she'll use parliamentary privilege.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Some have argued that while parliamentary privilege might protect an MP who opted to reveal the man's name, it "wouldn't protect whoever disclosed to the Parliamentarian" in the case of an NDA.

So, using parliamentary privilege could very well create legal problems for those who've signed NDAs.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Phillips confirmed that she would not be naming the accused in Wednesday's PMQs as she did not yet know the name of the person.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

"All those telling me to name him, I don't know who he is and the system stops those silenced telling me," said Phillips.

UPDATE: Oct. 24, 2018, 12:09 p.m. BST Jess Phillips' tweet confirming she would not reveal the name in Wednesday's PMQs.