- 16 A A between the parties became all the more important in my deliberation as to B C D whether to give the interlocutory injunction pending the trial of this action. 53. Evidence of comment, some seemingly judgmental, on the lifestyle of Chor’s wife as portrayed in the Video on the internet was B C D produced. But it matters not what opinion any given person may form E F about Chor and his family upon viewing the Video and reading the caption in the Article. The damage that the publication of the Information may E F bring about to Chor (and his family) would take the form of embarrassment, G H anxiety and annoyance; and this would be because of their private and family affairs being exposed to an extent substantially beyond what was G H agreed upon or expected. That this kind of damage is difficult to quantify I and to adequately compensate, in my view, should be clear. As a matter of I J fact, there is no claim for damages apart from the injunctive relief. J K 54. K The fact that the Information has been published on the websites since 2010 would not render an injunction academic. The scale of L L publication, if not restrained, would be such that the Information continued M N to be available to all those who have or would have access to the relevant websites directly or by linkage. Every hit, be it fresh or repetitive, counts: M N see Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2006] QB 125 at 162D-F (per Lord O Phillips MR). O P 55. P Q Solabarrieta suggested that the interlocutory injunction has tarnished her reputation; and its discharge was vital in that it would Q vindicate her as an honest and innocent producer of the Video and the R S author of the Article. I did not see how. As she also suggested, much publicity has been generated as a consequence of the commencement of R S this action. The discharge of the interlocutory injunction would not have T the effect she suggested, unless and until she is cleared of the allegations T U U V V