- 11 A A matter of contract. In the premises, whether Chor’s wife should also be B C made a plaintiff does not affect Chor’s capacity to sue. Higher standard of proof D C D 35. E B Mr Hughes submitted that demonstrating that the above constitute serious questions to be tried would not suffice. As far as the E mandatory part of the injunction was concerned, Chor had to satisfy the F F court that it has a real prospect of success at the trial. This would be a G higher standard of proof. G H 36. H I That the injunction being sought is mandatory in nature does not per se entail the application of a different test in the consideration of I the merits of the claim. It is the finality effect of the grant or refusal of the J K interlocutory relief that matters. An interlocutory order would have such effect if its grant or refusal would effectively dispose of the action: see TKI J K Ltd v New Happy Ltd [1995] 1 HKC 551 at 554B-C. As such, the finality L M effect may well exist in the case of a prohibitory injunction. An instance would be an interlocutory injunction in an action to enforce a contractual L M restraint of trade or anti-competition clause that would expire before the N O P trial of the action. 37. After all, it is the consideration of the risk of injustice in withholding and granting the interlocutory injunction in the circumstances N O P of the particular case: see Music Advance Ltd v The Incorporated Owners Q R of Argyle Centre Phase I [2010] 2 HKLRD 1041 at §12. In the present case, the interlocutory injunction sought, both the mandatory and the Q R prohibitory part of it, does not have the finality character of effectively S T disposing of the case. If the injunction is granted, the availability of the Video and the caption in the Article would effectively been suspended from S T U U V V