- 17 A A against her in this action. This would not happen until after trial. For the B C present purpose, the relevant damage to Solabarrieta being considered should be that caused by the interlocutory injunction, if granted, and not the B C action which would in any event have to continue until judgment. D D 56. E F Whilst it was suggested that the Video should be instrumental to the development of Solabarrieta’s business, the materials before me did not show that this was the only or most significant element of her portfolio. E F It took her 8 paragraphs in 2 pages of affirmation in order to set out her G H academic and professional background even without the Video. Whilst the idea was said to be utilising the Video to pitch for the production of a G H television series, 2 years have elapsed since the production of the Video I J without any suggestion that such idea has actually materialised into any result. Further any such damage would take the form of loss of business or I J business opportunity to Solabarrieta; and could be quantified and K L compensated by way of damages. There was no suggestion to doubt Chor’s ability to fulfil his undertaking to pay damages in the event that the K L interlocutory injunction is eventually proven to be wrongly granted. M N M 57. The balance of convenience and injustice, I conclude, tilted in N favour of granting the interlocutory injunction. O O P P Q Q R (Simon Leung) Deputy High Court Judge S T R S Ms Winnie TAM, SC and Mr Christopher CHAIN, instructed by Messrs Maurice WM Lee Solicitors for the plaintiff T U U V V