173 It is important to recognise, in this context, that it would be wrong to approach any of the factors in s 130(5) in isolation. The general power a court has to restrict publication of proceedings may meet concerns about the otherwise adverse effect of access to documents for which public interest immunity is claimed, in the context of s 130(5)(d), but the justification for making such an order is likely to be affected by the assessments made with respect to the other factors in sub-s (5). Here, those other factors include, relevantly, the importance of the documents to the proceeding (s 130(5)(a)) and the nature of the cause of action to which the information relates (or fails to relate) (s 130(5)(c)). The conclusions reached here by the judge with respect to s 130(5)(a) and s 130(5)(c) left little room for any serious consideration of the making of orders for restricting access under s 130(5)(d). While this does not mean that it is optional for a judge as to whether to consider the likely effect of access or the possible forms of restriction upon publication under s 130(5)(d), as part of the balancing exercise prescribed under s 130(1), it does mean that the consideration given to those matters may be slight if the judge has already formed the view, as here, that what is sought has no or nominal importance to the proceeding. In any event, I do not consider the judge's consideration of this factor to be slight.[199] In my view, her Honour properly considered the likely effect of access and the difficulties that might arise from orders restricting publication.