A British judge has placed a so-called super-injunction on an employment tribunal having to do with two former employees of a chef. That means reporters will be allowed into the hearing but will have to use anonymous code names in their coverage to protect the identities of those involved.
Hmm, wonder who that chef could be? Possibly a certain shouty, Califonia dreamin' celebrity chef who is the proud overlord of a crumbling restaurant empire?
The British press is slying implying but absolutely not saying that it could be Gordon Ramsay on Twitter: Metro critic Marina O'Loughlin wonders "Who on earth could that chef be? *hollow laugh*," while Financial Times writer Bryce Elder helpfully notes that "The max fine for breaking a superinjunction is only £5,000. That's the same price as a 1985 Pétrus at Restaurant Gordon Ramsay." (Elder made sure to add "This is all hypothetical, of course. I can't afford 1985 Pétrus.")
The cases certainly follow the same patterns as the Ramsay suits: one defendant, suing the chef for "unfair dismissal, age discrimination and non-payment of wages," could be Ramsay's father-in-law/former business partner Chris Hutcheson. The other, whom the injunction insists be called "Ms J," claims "unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination" and could be former Ramsay employee Sara Stewart. But who knows, really?
· Chef Wins Gagging Order to Suppress Tribunal Details [Telegraph]
· All Gordon Ramsay Coverage on Eater [-E-]