damages provide an adequate remedy for violations of article 8 rights arising from the publication by a newspaper of private information.” The ECtHR went on to explain Armonienė v Lithuania as a case where damages had not provided an adequate remedy, because of the “derisory sum” that had been awarded. 40. On the other hand, in Mosley v United Kingdom the ECtHR was primarily engaged in delimiting the scope of ECHR rights, particularly with regard to prenotification, at a European level. It was not excluding the possibility of or justification for a prior restraint on publication in appropriate cases at a domestic level. Indeed, it upheld such a prior restraint in Editions Plon v France (2006) 42 EHRR 36. Further, it said this in Mosley (para 117): “117. Finally, the Court has emphasised that while article 10 does not prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on publication, the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest (see Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom (26 November 1991, (1992) 14 EHRR 153, para 60). The Court would, however, observe that prior restraints may be more readily justified in cases which demonstrate no pressing need for immediate publication and in which there is no obvious contribution to a debate of general public interest.” In the present case, it can be said that there is no urgency about any publication, as well as no evident contribution to any debate of general public interest. 41. At a domestic level, the Court of Appeal has itself also recognised that the refusal of an interlocutory injunction can operate as “a strong potential disincentive to respect for aspects of private life” and that, depending on the circumstances, it may only be by the grant of such an injunction that privacy rights can be satisfactorily protected: Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2006] QB 125, paras 257 and 259; and that such an injunction may be “the only remedy which is of any value”: A v B plc [2003] QB 195, para 11. Damage done by publication of a defamatory statement can be redressed by a public finding at trial that the allegation was false, but an invasion of privacy cannot be cured in a similar way, and for that reason there may never be a trial, whatever damages might be recoverable. These points are also Page 24