- 14 A A letterbox of her residence in the presence of the security guard of the B C building where she resides. Similar episode recurred when the solicitors’ representatives attempted to serve the Interim Order on Solabarrieta on 20 B C October 2012. D E D 46. Solabarrieta admitted finding the documents in the letterbox E but only on or about 23 October 2012. It was how and when she became F G aware of these proceedings. But amongst the news reports on the internet on this case since its commencement, there was one dated 21 October 2012 F G in which Solabarrieta reportedly responded to the press that she would H I consult her lawyers. That, if true and accurate, would contradict her suggestion that she was not aware of these proceedings until 23 October H I 2012. J J 47. K L M In any event, I agree with Ms Tam SC that the dispute in this respect was not material to my consideration of whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted now. L M NEED FOR SPECIFICITY N N 48. O P K It was argued that the injunction lacks specificity in the confidential information and hence too wide and vague. Mr Hughes referred to Sim Kon Fah v JBPB & Co [2011] 4 HKLRD 45; and submitted O P that if an injunction to restrain the defendant from disclosing confidential Q R S T information was not fully particularised, it would be difficult for anyone to know what was prohibited and what was not. 49. What Mr Hughes submitted came from similar submission made by counsel in Sim Kon Fah (above at §§50). Counsel there cited the Q R S T U U V V