19/09/2019 HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY " OF HONG KONG v. HONG KONG COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER PART A 1. Relevant Meetings means meetings of the Council of the Plaintiff held from 30 June 2015 to the date of the Interim Injunction Order made by the Deputy High Court Judge Seagroatt in these proceedings on 30 October 2015 (the ‘Injunction Order’). PART B 1. Information, or any part thereof, as was already in, or that thereafter comes into, the public domain (other than as a result of breach of the Injunction Order), including, for the avoidance of doubt, the following materials: (a) the audio recordings of the Relevant Meetings (or any part thereof) published on the 28 and 30 October 2015 by the 1* Defendant; (b) the transcripts of the audio recordings (or any part thereof) referred to in paragraph 1(a) of Part B of this Schedule; and (c) the information published by Billy Fung on 29 September 2015 in relation to the meeting of the Council of the Plaintiff on the 29 September 2015.” 16. As mentioned above, on 6 November 2015, five persons sought to take part in the proceedings, namely, the Hong Kong Journalists Association, Mr Lee Hei Shun, The Hon Mr Ip Kin Yuen, Mr. Lau Yee Ching and Apple Daily Limited. 17. Mr Lee Hei Shun said he had downloaded the two recordings published by the 1“ defendant on 28 and 30 October 2015 and for that reason claimed to fall within the description of the 2"! defendant (prior to amendment). Mr Ip Kin Yuen sought to be joined as an intervener on the basis of his capacities as (1) a permanent resident of the HKSAR; (i1) a member of the University’s Court; (iii) a member of the University’s Convocation; (iv) a convenor of a group of persons called “HKU Alumni Concern Group”; and (v) amember of the Legislative Council. 18. On the eve of the hearing on 24 November 2015, both Mr Lee Hei Shun and Mr Ip Kin Yuen indicated they no longer wished to take part. This leaves Hong Kong Journalists Association, Mr Lau Yee Ching and Apple Daily Limited, whom I shall refer to collectively as the “intended interveners”. For the purpose of the hearing on 24 November, counsel on their behalves helpfully combined their effort and submitted a joint supplemental skeleton argument. https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T 6/33