- 12 A A the relevant websites. B C D E F The kind of irreversible consequence of an interlocutory injunction that would have caused the court concern about finality is not apparent, if ever existing, in the circumstances. B C D DELAY 38. Application for interlocutory injunction should be made promptly. It was argued that there was substantial delay since the E F publication of the Video and the Article on the internet before the present G G application. H H 39. I J Mr Hughes referred to Chinaplus Wines Limited v Berry Bros & Rudd Limited, HCA 1818/2012 (13 December 2012) for the purpose of demonstrating that ‘promptly’ would mean not more than 6 weeks of I J unexplained delay or alternatively 3 months of explained delay. I found K that to be unhelpful, as each case must be considered on its own facts. L L 40. M N K In the present case, indeed 2 years had elapsed since the publication of the Video and the Article on the internet before the Chor couple complained about them. It was suggested that the Chor couple M N ought to have learned about the content of the Article, the link to which O P was forwarded by Solabarrieta to them at one time. As to the Video on YouTube, there was no suggestion that the link to that had been forwarded O P to the couple. Q R Q 41. The Chor couple explained that they never opened the link to R the Article. As to the Video, even Solabarrieta suggested that the average S T hits on the Video on YouTube by mid-August 2010 had been very modest. The Chor couple claimed that they came to discover the publication of the S T U U V V