IMOGEN THOMAS IN THE CLEAR AS RYAN GIGGS ADMITS SHE WAS NOT BLACKMAILER

By David Pilditch

BIG BROTHER star Imogen Thomas cleared her name yesterday of claims that she blackmailed footballer Ryan Giggs over their alleged affair.

The Manchester United star accepted there was no basis for the accusation.

Married father-of-two Giggs had claimed the model and TV presenter demanded £100,000 to keep their six-month relationship quiet.

Imogen, 29, denied the allegation and said she was unable to defend herself due to a legal gagging order obtained by Giggs eight months ago.

But yesterday Imogen said she felt “vindicated” after Mr Justice Eady gave her permission to make a public statement in the High Court in London to clear her name.

After the brief hearing, she said: “To suddenly have to defend my character because of this legal process has been extremely upsetting and stressful.

“I’m just relieved that the parties and the court now accept that I’m no blackmailer. I have been vindicated and that’s all I wanted. I have nothing to add. It’s all behind me now.”

She sent a Twitter message thanking followers for their support.

During the hearing Imogen, who appeared on the reality show in 2006, sat beside her lawyer David Price QC as he read out the statement on her behalf.

He told how the footballer had signed a witness statement which alleged Imogen asked him for money to help in the purchase of a flat.

Giggs, 37, was granted an injunction on the basis of the claim. The order remains even though he was named in the House of Commons in May using the rule of Parliamentary privilege.

Previously Mr Justice Eady said the injunction still served a purpose to stop his family being “engulfed in a cruel and destructive media frenzy”.Giggs, whose lawyers were not in court, was referred to duringthe proceedings only as CTB.

Although his anonymity was not formally lifted, Mr Justice Eady put to Mr Price: “There is no longer any point in maintaining the anonymity?”

Mr Price did not reply but reading from the statement told how Miss Thomas did not want to speak out about the alleged affair and never had done.

He said: “On April 14 Mr Justice Eady granted an injunction. Ms Thomas was not notified of the hearing and first found out about the injunction after it was granted. On May 16 Mr Justice Eady delivered a judgment in which he explained his reasons for granting the injunction in Ms Thomas’s absence.

“The judge said that CTB’s evidence appeared to suggest that CTB was being blackmailed, although that was not how CTB had put it himself.”

Mr Justice Eady also “appeared to indicate” Ms Thomas was responsible for a newspaper article on April 14.

Mr Price added: “CTB accepts that there is no basis to accuse Ms Thomas of blackmail.

“CTB and Ms Thomas have now resolved matters between them.

“Ms Thomas did not want to disclose private information concerning CTB.

“That remains her position now that the record has been set straight.”