- 9 A - accede to the HKSAR Government’s request without the production of a valid court order demonstrating the relevant B A B contents’ violation of Hong Kong law. The injunction will C serve the purpose of making it clear to IPOs by way of a court order that the specified contents are prohibited by Hong Kong D C D law, which should therefore be removed and not be allowed E to be uploaded to their platforms. F F The injunction was intended to be contra mundum, or in plain 11. G H E language, against the world. If granted, it would bind persons who were not identifiable at the time when the injunction was made and who had not G H at that time infringed or threatened to infringe it but might do so at a later I I time. J K L M N O J By the Decision, the Judge refused to grant the injunction. 12. His reasons may be summarised as below. He first raised concerns about the contra mundum effect of the injunction. It was exceptional to ask the court to depart from the general rule that a person should only be made subject to the court’s jurisdiction with the requisite notice of the proceedings. It was alarming that once a newcomer had breached the injunction he would find himself liable to criminal prosecution as well as K L M N O contempt proceedings for the same act. If granted, the injunction would P Q likely to be a final order because it was unlikely for the action to proceed to trial or for anyone answering the description of the Defendants to contest the action. R S V Q It was therefore necessary to subject the application to stringent scrutiny with emphasis on safeguarding the fundamental rights of third persons who might be adversely affected.10 T U P R S T 10 Decision, [34] - [43]. U V