The UK’s leading judges have warned MPs not to abuse their parliamentary privilege to break the privacy achieved by injunctions.

Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, appeared before the media this morning to set out a review of injunctions.

The report said injunctions should only be granted when they are ‘strictly necessary’, and stated that they could not be considered permanent.

There was also a firm warning for MPs who expose the claimants in Parliament that they could be held in contempt of court unless the claimants are revealed ‘in good faith and without malice’.

Speaking to the press at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Lord Neuberger said: ‘It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

‘But you do need to think whether it’s a good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order, or they disagree with the privacy law created by Parliament.’

On Thursday, Lord Stoneham became the latest Member of Parliament to use Parliamentary privilege – which offers legal immunity during debates – to expose an injunction, when he revealed details of the case involving former RBS chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin.

Lord Neuberger said the media should be notified in advance of a court ruling over injunctions, and where possible journalists should be allowed into court when an application is made.

But Neuberger gave little indication of whether the press could challenge an injunction, and made no call for a change to privacy laws, with the report concluding that this must be left for Parliament to consider.

Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson added: ‘What is absent from the debate is a frank assessment of how we have reached this status quo.

'To an extent, the courts have reacted to unhelpful attacks on the judiciary and an avalanche of media comment. Some of the media's reporting has been self-serving and partisan, in addition to a focus on celebrity and the personal lives of public figures.

'There is a need to distinguish between a public interest right to know and information of merely prurient interest to those focused on selling newspapers.

‘We are dismayed at the extent to which reporting on privacy injunctions has involved criticism of the courts and the judiciary, who by the government's own admission, are "filling a gap" left by Parliament.

'The need for debate on this issue is clear, but that does not mean that the law or decisions of the courts should be undermined or casually ignored.

'A number of recent commentators might usefully reflect on their behaviour.

‘The Law Society continues to be a leading voice in calling for open justice, and we agree with the report that there should be a substantial test before a court would  consider restricting freedom to know and report.

'We do, however, recognise that at times public interest and the balance of competing rights demand restrictions on reporting if justice is to be done.’