I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 requirement that plaintiffs must show unauthorised use of their materials and resulting detriment has come under increased scrutiny. There may often be circumstances where defendants wrongfully access or acquire confidential information but do not use or disclose the same. Nevertheless, their actions compromise the confidentiality of the information in question. In such circumstances, why should the courts not have the power to grant relief? 44 These considerations are at the forefront of the present claim for breach of confidence. The appellant submits that the respondent’s mere possession of and their act of referring to its confidential materials is sufficient to complete the cause of action for breach of confidence. The respondents wrongfully accessed, downloaded and circulated the appellant’s materials which they knew to be confidential in character. The Judge also found that the materials were referenced and reviewed by the respondents for their own purposes (GD at [123]). These acts undermined the appellant’s desire to maintain the confidentiality of its materials. We note that unlike the lower level claim of copyright infringement, this argument was specifically pleaded. It is unclear why the Judge considered otherwise (GD at [124]). The amended Statement of Claim particularised the fact that the respondents had “referenced” the appellant’s confidential information “to develop [their] source codes, systems [and] materials”. It is also apparent from the Judge’s findings that this point was explicitly canvassed before him. The respondents therefore cannot claim there has been a change in position. 45 The appellant’s argument for a modern approach prompts the question of whether the current law of confidence is sufficiently broad to encompass the myriad of ways in which confidentiality might be undermined. There are three considerations this court should have in mind in answering this: 21