(4) The parties' .agreement that the proceedings be held in private: Ex parte Kaim Todner, atp.977C-E. (5) The mere fact that the subject proceedings etc which gave rise to a judicial review application were held in private: Re The Takeovers & Mergers Panel [1996] 2 HKLR 60 ； Sit Ka Yin Priscilia v Equal Opportunities Commission [1998] 1 HKC278. 24. Viewed in terms of the balancing exercise described above, it may be said that the right to privacy underlying some of these considerations or matters is in itself insufficient to justify a departure from the general rule of open justice (see also paragraph 31 below). 25. This is hardly surprising. After all, unwanted publicity, embarrassment and so forth are some of the normal incidence of litigation. They are some of the inevitable consequences of open justice. As a general rule, no one involved in litigation, particularly the initiating party of litigation, can complain. In many but certainly not all cases, ifparties desire secrecy, they may, where appropriate, go for arbitration, mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution. 26. Sixth, however, open justice is, from the perspective ofproper administration ofjustice, just a means, albeit an important one, to an end, that is, the doing ofjustice between the parties concerned: Scott v Scott, at p.437; Ex parte New Cross Building Society, at 17