MPs were preparing to debate the impact of so-called super-injunctions on parliamentary proceedings as the Gazette went to press.

This followed last week’s media feeding frenzy that saw renowned libel lawyers Carter-Ruck accused of trying to gag parliament on behalf of a client, the oil trader Trafigura. Carter-Ruck has vehemently denied the allegation, stating that ‘neither Trafigura nor Carter-Ruck has at any time improperly sought to stifle or restrict debate in parliament or the reporting thereof’.

At a briefing on Tuesday, lord chief justice Lord Judge waded in to the debate, while declining to comment specifically on the Trafigura affair.

He said: ‘I should need some very powerful persuasion indeed that it would be constitutionally proper for a court to make an order to limit discussions in parliament or that any judge could formulate an injunction to have that effect.

‘We do use the words "fundamental principle" very frequently, but this is a fundamental principle. The right did not come without a price. Generations have fought and died for it.’

The affair has highlighted growing disquiet about the UK’s libel and privacy laws and what Carter-Ruck’s adversary in the Trafigura case, the Guardian newspaper, described as the ‘seemingly inexorable march towards greater censorship and self-censorship’.

Last week, California became the latest US state to clamp down on libel tourism when governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law to allow its courts to refuse to enforce libel judgments handed down in London.

Conservative MP Peter Bottomley has reported Carter-Ruck to the Law Society. It is understood the complaint will be forwarded to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.