Group Ltd [2005] EMLR 748, paras 78-79, where he said that the question was not whether information was generally accessible, but rather whether an injunction would serve a useful purpose and by Briggs J in Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 24 (Ch), paras 22-26, where he also said that HRA section 12(4)(a)(i) in his judgment “creates no separate or different test …, at least where … there is no suggestion that the material is about to become available to the public”. 27. Eady J and Tugendhat J have since further elaborated the significance of the principle in successive judgments in CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB) and 1334 (QB). In CTB, as in the present case, an interim injunction had been granted to restrain disclosure of information about an alleged sexual relationship. In CTB the claimant was a well-known footballer who was married and had a family. In the five or so weeks after the injunction was granted, substantial information, from sources which could not be attributed to the defendant, became available on Twitter and the internet generally identifying or pointing towards the footballer. The defendants argued in effect that privacy injunctions (and no doubt other forms of injunction also) had ceased to serve any useful purpose in an age when information could be put out on various networks within or outside this jurisdiction by persons other than the immediate defendant. 28. More specifically, the defendants in CTB also placed reliance on Eady J’s refusal of an injunction to Mr Max Mosley in Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 687 (QB). Eady J had there said that: “The court should guard against slipping into playing the role of King Canute. Even though an order may be desirable for the protection of privacy, and may be made in accordance with the principles currently being applied by the courts, there may come a point where it would simply serve no useful purpose and would merely be characterised, in the traditional terminology, as a brutum fulmen. It is inappropriate for the court to make vain gestures.” In CTB Eady J explained why this statement did not cover the circumstances in CTB: “18. The circumstances here are rather different. In Mosley, I took the view that there was no point in granting an injunction because, even before the application was made, several hundred thousand people had seen the intimate video footage which NGN had put on line - conduct that was recently characterised by the ECtHR as a ‘flagrant and unjustified Page 17