Hot pink! Imogen Thomas hides her blushes in a bright dress out on the town


Hot in pink! Imogen Thomas dress matches her blushes as she goes out in a floaty dress on a very windy day

It seems Imogen Thomas has forgotten the cardinal rule of wearing a floaty dress on a windy day.

The model stepped out in a very short dress for a walk in the park in London on Saturday, with the windy weather exposing a lot more than the 30-year-old bargained for.

Although it could be argued Imogen wasn't exactly dressed sensibly for walk in the park in her sky high heels.

Opps! Imogen Thomas steps out in floaty pink dress, on a very windy day

Opps! Imogen Thomas steps out in floaty pink dress, on a very windy day

Opps! Imogen Thomas steps out in floaty pink dress, on a very windy day

But the vain reality TV star did keep her eyes covered behind sunglasses, perhaps to hide the effects of a treatment undertaken this week.

She was spotted
entering a clinic on London's Harley Street on Tuesday to get an
alternative treatment to Botox.

Thomas reportedly underwent a non-invasive facial at the clinic – an alternative to wrinkle reducing procedure Botox.

Smile through it! Imogen keeps her brave face on as her dress slips up in the wind

Smile through it! Imogen keeps her brave face on as her dress slips up in the wind

The former Big Brother star may have looked shocked to be spotted outside the clinic but it was a different story last night.

Thomas ensured she looked her best as she stepped out for the Look party, even accessorising with some chunky gold bracelets.

Covering her modesty: Imogen Thomas tries to keep her dress firmly down

Covering her modesty: Imogen Thomas tries to keep her dress firmly down

Covering her modesty: Imogen Thomas tries to keep her dress firmly down

And perhaps the star was celebrating after a High Court judge threw out a privacy case brought by footballer Ryan Giggs against The Sun newspaper leaving him with a 500,000 bill.

The Manchester United player claimed the newspaper 'misused' private information and said he was entitled to claim damages for distress and breach of a right to privacy enshrined in human rights legislation.

But Mr Justice Tugendhat said his claim for damages was unlikely to result in any 'significant award' and concluded there was 'no purpose' in allowing the litigation to continue.