Sir Philip Green is to lodge a complaint against the Labour peer who outed him as the businessman at the centre of allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse.
Lord Hain used parliamentary privilege protection to identify the Arcadia chairman as the individual who had obtained a legal injunction that prevented The Daily Telegraph from publishing “confidential information” from five employees.
Sir Philip said Lord Hain had failed to disclose he had a financial relationship with the newspaper’s lawyers, and plans to complain to Lords authorities.
Lord Hain acts as a global and governmental adviser for the law firm Gordon Dadds but said he had been “completely unaware” it was acting for the Telegraph in the case.
It comes after Sky News tracked down Sir Philip at a health resort in the US.
In announcing his complaint, the Topshop billionaire said: “When Lord Hain made allegations about me in the House of Lords … he failed to disclose that he has a financial relationship with the law firm, Gordon Dadds, who represent the Telegraph.
“I have been advised that his actions are likely to have been a breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct.
“As many people have said, Lord Hain’s blatant disregard of a judgement made by three senior judges is outrageous.
“If he hadn’t read the judgement, 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 repeated that “to the extent that it is suggested that I have been guilty of unlawful sexual or racist behaviour, I categorically and wholly deny these allegations”.
When Sky News tracked him down in the Canyon Ranch health resort in Tucson, Arizona, he refused to comment.
As Sky’s Greg Milam tried to question him he responded: “You need to leave. Can you go away? I believe you’re being intrusive.”
Lord Hain defended his actions, saying on Saturday: “I stand resolutely by what I’ve said and neither retract nor apologise for standing up for human rights.
“I always comply fully with my House of Lords obligations as I did on that occasion.”
He said Sir Philip’s plan to lodge a formal complaint was a “malevolent diversion”
Lord Hain had earlier said he felt he had a “duty” to name Sir Philip, after legal experts strongly criticised his decision to exercise his right to do so while the case was still going through the courts.
Lord Hain insisted he took his decision acting in a “personal capacity”.
He added: “I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising the Telegraph regarding this case.
“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”
Former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC criticised Lord Hain, saying his behaviour had been “clearly arrogant” and that he had abused parliamentary privilege in deciding he knew better than the courts.
Some MPs have called on the Honours Forfeiture Committee to consider withdrawing Sir Philip’s knighthood in light of the allegations.
Downing Street stressed that the Honours Forfeiture Committee was independent.
A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “They are constantly reviewing evidence in relation to matters like this.”