-8A B A 17. A particular feature of this application needs to be B highlighted, and that is that the Applicant seeks a mandatory C D E injunction — an order requiring the Government to do a certain thing. Moreover, if granted, it will be an order that finally determines and effectively disposes of the underlying proceedings so far as the C D E second decision is concerned. F F 18. In the context of mandatory injunction in private law, as G G Ma J (as the Chief Justice then was) stated in Music Advance Ltd v The H I Incorporated Owners of Argyle Centre Phase I [2010] 2 HKLRD 10413 at §12(7): K L I “… generally a court will have to feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial of an action it will be shown that the interlocutory injunction was rightly granted before an interlocutory mandatory injunction will be given …” J 19. H Further, in a case that Ma J relied on, Films Rover J K L International Ltd v. Cannon Films Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670 at 681, M M Hoffmann J said this: N “In addition to all these practical considerations, there is also what might be loosely called a ‘due process’ question. An order requiring someone to do something is usually perceived as a more intrusive exercise of the coercive power of the state than an order requiring him temporarily to refrain from action. The court is therefore more reluctant to make such an order against a party who has not had the protection of a full hearing at trial.” O P Q R S 20. In the context of judicial review proceedings, depending on the character in substance of the injunctive order sought, there is a further N O P Q R S dimension to consider, and that is, the proper role of the court in the T T 3 U V decided in 2002. U V