-7A B A not making any changes on a case by case basis is also prima facie B contrary to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that the ISD, pending C C completion of its review, should be more flexible in dealing with requests D and give access wherever possible. E E 15. F D It seems to me there is a reasonably arguable case for judicial review, at any rate for some of the relief sought. Important issues F are raised concerning access of persons working for online media. The G G decision challenged dated 11 January 2017 was the first general H I indication after the Ombudsman’s report. In any event, it is a continuing policy with wide ramifications. Insofar as an extension of time is needed, H I I would grant it. Accordingly, I would grant the application for leave to J apply for judicial review. K 16. L M As for the Applicant’s application for interim injunction, the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunction are not in dispute. They involve examining (i) whether there are serious issues to J K L M be tried in the application for judicial review; (ii) whether damages would N O be an adequate remedy for either party (though, in a public law case of this kind, the adequacy of damages as an alternative remedy is of less N O relevance); and (iii) whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of P Q granting or refusing interim relief. In this last stage, in the public law context, it is important to have regard to the wider perspective of public P Q interest: Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd v Chief Executive in R S Council [2003] 3 HKLRD 960, §§10–13 per Hartmann J; Man Hing Medical Suppliers (International) Ltd v Director of Health and Another R S (unrep, HCAL 62/2014, 7 January 2015), §7 per Au J; see also Cheung T U V Tak Wing v Communications Authority (unrep, HCAL 60/2015, 12 June 2015) at §§23–30 per Au J. T U V