- 13 A A Video on the internet indirectly during the last quarter of 2012. Upon that, B C Chor’s wife sent a telephone message complaining to Solabarrieta’s mother on 29 August 2012. 12 minutes later on the same day, Chor’s wife sent an B C electronic message to Solabarrieta making the same complaint and demand. D D 42. E F Whether the Chor couple were ignorant about the publication on the internet until late August 2012 is a factual dispute. At the moment, it was not abundantly clear that their explanation is liable to be rejected as E F being inherently improbable. G G 43. As to what happened since the above complaint in late August H H 2012, Solabarrieta suggested in her response that all parties had to wait I until after mid-September 2012 before anything could be done about that. I From then to the commencement of action in early October 2012 and then J J the taking out of the present application a week later, I did not see the kind K of unexplained substantial delay that would have impaired an application K for the interlocutory injunctive relief. L L M SERVICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS M N 44. N O Solabarrieta complained that the Interim Order was given in her absence and when she was unaware of the commencement of these O proceedings. P Q P 45. There was conflicting evidence from the representatives of Q Chor’s solicitors and Solabarrieta in respect of what happened on 16 R S October 2012 when the former attempted to serve the court documents, including the writ and the summons, on the latter. But the solicitors’ R S representatives deposed that upon the refusal of Solabarrieta to accept T service on that occasion, the court documents were inserted into the T U U V V