-5A A court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests B C D B of justice. 15. Chor’s application was based on ground (ii) above. The major concern expressed was that the public has been and would still be induced C D by the press reports of this case to attempt to gain access to the Video on E F the internet; and therefore the private lives of Chor and his family would be exposed to the public. Experience from the last hearing before Mimmie E F Chan J was cited. It was argued that the very purpose of the injunction, G even if granted, would be rendered pointless, if the publicity of this hearing H continued. I 16. G H I do not agree. The private lives of Chor’s family were I exposed because of the Video and the caption in the Article placed on the J J internet, not the commencement of this action or court hearings or the press K reports of them. Otherwise, but by no means suggesting that it would have K been allowed (if made), an application should have been made for an L L anonymity order when Chor intended to commence the present action (like M N O what the torture claimant sought in Re Bu [2012] 4 HKLRD 417, a case cited by both parties). 17. That the public has been induced to gain access to the Video M N O by now cannot be undone. So long as this action remains, the public may P Q still be induced to attempt to do so. No difference would be made, unless the Video and the caption in the Article are no longer available for general P Q public access on the internet. Their availability pending the determination R of this action was exactly what Chor’s summons was about. R S S T T U U V V