TNAG-1694-FCO40-2344-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 58

SEP 09 87 14:39 HERBERT SMITH HK

18

trial.

Secondly, the speeches contain an exposition of the relevant law and practice which both binda us and points to

our proper conclusion.

All their Lordships were agreed upon two

propositions namely:

(1) that when the injunction was originally

granted, the Plaintiff had an arguable

case for a permanent injunction.

(2) that the Vice-Chancellor was right to

Bay!

"As in 1986, damages would be an ineffective and inappropriate remedy for the Attorney General. An injunction is the only thing that is any good to him."

What divided their Lordship was whether proposition (1)

remained true on the facts, consequent upon the publication of the book in the United Stater. If, as the majority held, the propositions remained true it could simply be

demonstrated:-

*

(a) that refusal of an interim injunction

would deprive the Plaintiff of any

ffective remedy without a trial;

whereas

ľ.

(b) its grant would postpone not defeat the

Defendants' right to publish matters

not in themselves novel

"

*

17

Lord Brandon summed up the position in this way:

1

"The choice lies between one course

I

H

which may result in permanent and irrevocable damage to the cause of the

P.2