(1) The documents were probably impressed with the quality of confidence. This was apparent from both its ‘nature and circumstances’ given the sensitive commercial nature of the information.
(2) D2, a specialist financial journalist, would have been aware of the confidentiality of the information she had in her possession. In any event, D1/D2 were on notice from 1 March 2017 of the information’s confidentiality, Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd  1 WLR 1556 followed.
(3) It does not matter that D1/D2 did not have C’s documents in their possession. The information they sought to publish was both confidential and derived from C’s documents. Detriment is not a necessary ingredient for the cause of action in breach of confidence, Attorney-General v Observer Ltd  1 A.C. 109 at  followed.
(4) The identifiable public interest did not meet the relevant test that in the circumstances, it was not in the public interest that the duty of confidence should be breached, Associated Newspapers Ltd v HRH Prince of Wales  Ch.57 at  applied. This was for the following reasons:
a) The importance of maintaining duties of confidence, particularly in the context of disclosure to potential investors, in material which is relevant to their decision making. Full and candid disclosure is highly desirable in the context of large financial investments.
b) There had been no misleading self-promotion by C that could lead to the assertion that publication was exposing hypocrisy or incompetence, or that there was any deceit or concealment.
c) The relevant provisions of the IPSO code demonstrated that the identifiable public interest is at the lower end of the spectrum in this case.
5) The difficulties in establishing the amount of damages in a case such as this are obvious, those difficulties justify injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the injunction was granted. C had satisfied the Judge that they would more likely than not establish at trial that they would be entitled to restrain publication.