19/09/2019 HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG v. HONG KONG COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” 57. Mr Lee SC and Mr Shum submitted that having regard to the existence of these constitutional rights, the American Cyanmid approach, in particular the standard of serious issues to be tried, is inapplicable, and that instead the court should require the plaintiff to establish its case to a much threshold. higher They drew support from section 12(3) of the (UK) Human Rights Act 1998 and the cases decided under that provision. Section 12(1) and (3) provides as follows: “(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression. (3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.” 58. Section 12(3) is the product of a Parliamentary decision in the UK the background of which was [2005] 1 AC 253, §15. explained in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee There is no similar legislation in Hong Kong and it is not for the Court of First Instance to rewrite the law by a judicial decision to adopt an equivalent approach. https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T 19/33