a. the extent to which i. the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or ii. it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published; b. any relevant privacy code.” Cranston J’s decision 13. When refusing an injunction on 15 January 2016, Cranston J: (i) accepted that the appellant had a reasonable expectation that his sexual activities would remain private, (ii) added that he was “especially troubled” by the children’s privacy interests under ECHR article 8, though these could not operate as a “trump card”, (iii) rejected the respondent’s suggestion that the proposed publication went to any relevant matter of “public debate”, (iv) identified the appellant and his partner as portraying an image to the world of a committed relationship, accepted that “commitment may not entail monogamy”, but concluded that there was a public interest in correcting the image by disclosing that the appellant had engaged in the sort of casual sexual relationships demonstrated by the evidence, and (v) on that basis, and noting that the threshold test for granting an interim injunction was in this context higher than the generally applicable test in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, refused an injunction. Page 7