Appellant seeks review of a non-final order granting Appellee’s request for a temporary injunction. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

As this Court has previously held, the issuance of a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which must be based on a showing of the following criteria: “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law;. (3) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of public interest.” Tom v. Russ, 752 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist [*173] Church, 721 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610, a trial court’s order granting injunctive relief must “specify the reasons for the entry” of the injunction. This Court has emphasized that “[cjlear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary injunction.” Spradley, 721 So.2d at 737 (quoting City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So.2d 750, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).

The order on appeal failed to address any of the four criteria necessary for the issuance of an injunction and failed to set forth any factual findings in support of the required criteria. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to either enter an order that satisfies all the requirements for entry of a temporary injunction or, if appropriate, an order denying the injunction.

REVERSED and REMANDED.