19/09/2019 HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG v. HONG KONG COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER 90. I recognise that, depending on the circumstances, delayed disclosure can cause irreparable prejudice or injustice even if the party seeking disclosure ultimately prevails. As Mr Martin Lee SC emphasised, the impact of an article or broadcast may depend on “timing, news value and topicality” (words taken from Cambridge Nutrition Ltd v British Broadcasting Corp, supra, 534-535). In the present case, however, the Appointment Issue has already been dealt with. There is no question of the Council’s decision being re-opened. Prof Johannes Chan has publicly stated he will not mount any legal challenge against the decision. In fact, according to Mr Ip Kin Yuen in his affirmation 2015, dated 5 November chapter that is now closed”. the matter is “now history”, “a His counsel (Mr Alan Leong SC) submitted on 6 November that the subject matter was “no longer a live or current issue”. In these circumstances whereas the refusal of an interim injunction would practically put an end to the action, the grant of it does not necessarily have that effect, especially if the trial can be expedited. 91. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case that are before the court, including the facts that this is an interlocutory application, that the injunction sought interlocutory right, is temporary pending injunctive relief may I consider that an interim the trial, and that a refusal of effectively deprive the plaintiff of its injunction coupled with an order for expedited trial is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preserving and respecting the rights of the University in the interests of justice. I consider that the University’s claim has sufficient merits in light of all the circumstances of the case to justify making a temporary interim order until its claim can be substantively determined and adjudicated upon. Accordingly it is my opinion that the proper exercise of the discretion in accordance with principles requires that I should continue the interlocutory injunction. Conclusion and order 92. For the foregoing reasons, there will be an order that: (1) the injunction granted on 30 October 2015 as amended on 6 November 2015 be continued until trial or further order; and https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T 31/33