The case, which I suggested could be the most significant constitutional case of our generation, will not now take place.
The good news is reported here.
As I guessed earlier, it was not based on libel but - according to The Guardian - alleged contempt of court. It would take something like that to prompt a court to grant an injunction at the very extreme of its jurisdiction (and, as far as I can tell, beyond that extreme).
Injunctions are discretionary and equitable; as such the court will not grant one in vain. Once the information protected is viral, and whatever the other merits of the case, the court is unlikely to renew any injunction.
It may well be that The Guardian knew this full well when it posted its possible-to-decode coded report yesterday evening.
For once decoded, it was likely to go viral, which it did.
If so, The Guardian proved the ancient adage that clever people get themselves out of situations which wise people wouldn't get into.
However, two important questions remain.
The first question is how did such an injunction get granted in the first place.
The second question is indeed the still unanswered Parliamentary Question...