19/09/2019 HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG v. HONG KONG COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER 64. It is clear in the present case that pecuniary compensation to either party would be neither adequate nor appropriate. finally determine the rights and Nor can the court at this stage obligations incomplete evidence and incomplete argument. of the parties, based on A balancing exercise with a view to finding the course likely to result in the least injustice has to be conducted, taking account of all relevant factors, including the strength and weakness of the parties’ cases as well as the prejudice that would be caused to them respectively by the refusal or grant of interlocutory relief. Given the state of the law of confidence, the resolution of the question of interlocutory relief will inevitably involve taking into account competing public interests, but this must be done having due regard to the principle that any restriction on the fundamental freedom of expression including the freedom to receive information has to be justified as necessary and proportionate. Authority to sue 65. Two discrete points made by the intended interveners can be shortly dealt with. The first is that, it was submitted, the then Chairman of the Council had no authority to commence this action or to instruct solicitors and counsel to prosecute it. In my opinion there is no substance in this point, or in the associated point that the plaintiff failed to disclose such lack of authority at the ex parte stage. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code of the Council (introduced in 2005) makes it clear that when matters arise which are too urgent to be left to the next scheduled meeting, the Chairman may either call a special meeting or deal with them by taking action himself, taking care to do so only in an appropriate delegated authority. case and not to exceed of his The evidence shows that the Chairman had on various previous occasions exercised that power. 2015 were urgent. the scope The circumstances on 30 October The decision to seek an ex parte injunction could not meaningfully be deferred to the whole Council whether at a special meeting or by circulation when the Unknown Council or staff. Person could be a member of the Finally, at a special meeting held on 12 November 2015, the Council acknowledged that the steps taken in these proceedings were within the Chairman’s authority and, to avoid any doubt, expressly approved and ratified them. https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T 22/33