19/09/2019 HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY 62. OF HONG KONG v. HONG KONG COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER I am highly conscious of the dimension of free speech in the present case, but there is nothing in the authorities to show that the traditional approach suitably adjusted and applied would necessarily fail to give due recognition and effect to any fundamental rights. 63. In Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd, at the interlocutory stage of the famous Spycatcher case, the Court of Appeal FSR 3, 18) applying the American Cyanmid approach, injunction which had been continued by Millett J. complaint brought infringed, inter alia, by the article newspapers 10 of the (see [1989] 2 maintained Subsequently, that the interlocutory European Convention Rights, in which it was submitted that the American an in the injunction on Human Cyanmid principles were unduly advantageous to a plaintiff seeking to restrain disclosure, the European abstracto, Court of Human proceeding Rights declined to review those principles in instead to determine “whether the interference resulting from their application was necessary having regard to the facts and circumstances prevailing in the specific case before it”: The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 153, 193. In the result the European Court held that there was no infringement of article 10 arising from the interim injunction granted between the period from July 1986 to July 1987 (ie the period prior to the publication of the book in the United States), noting: “In any event, ... the English courts did far more than simply apply the American Cyanmid principles inflexibly or automatically; they recognised that the present case involved a conflict between the public interest in preventing and the public interest in allowing disclosure of the material in question, which conflict they resolved by a careful weighing of the relevant considerations on either side.” https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T 21/33