-7A A 21. B C Ms Tam SC, with Mr Chain, for Chor submitted that family and personal matters are capable of being confidential in nature: see Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong (2nd ed) Vol.47 at §380.523 (referring to B C Michael Barrymore v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] FSR 600 at 602). D E I agree. In my view, the context in which and the purpose for which information was elicited and provided are also relevant. In these respects, D E the evidences of the parties are conflicting. F G F 22. The content of the Video and the caption referring to the Chor G couple together with their photograph in the Article speak for themselves. H I They consist of matters personal and private to the Chor couple and family. There were also moments of expression of feelings and emotion about the H I family relationship. Arguably they would not be known without being J K revealed; and would not be revealed without being asked about. I agree with Ms Tam SC that to dissect the Information piece by piece is not J K profitable for the present purpose of determining whether the same is L M N confidential in nature. 23. Mr Hughes submitted that the Chor couple gave the Information freely. But that did not necessarily take away the confidential L M N nature of the information or the duty of confidence in respect of that. All O P depend on whether the Information was provided in circumstances where one would expect confidentiality to be respected; and where the O P Information was only supposed to be used for specific purposes as Q understood at the time when the Information was provided: see Li Yau Wai Q R Eric v Genesis Films Ltd [1987] HKLR 711 at 719C and G. R S 24. S T In Li Yau Wai Eric, an exception was suggested, namely that it was the plaintiff who sought publicity. Indeed Mr Hughes for Solabarrieta T U U V V