I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 publication by the writer’s consent” (at 312). This protection was also broad enough to justify a prohibition on the description of the etchings, meaning the catalogue. 48 On appeal, Lord Cottenham LC similarly recognised the existence of a common law property right in the unpublished etchings. But, he also found a second basis for injunctive relief. Given the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and the absence of any explanation as to how the defendants came by the etchings legitimately, the court was bound to assume that the possession of the etchings originated in a “breach of trust, confidence, or contract” (Prince Albert at 1179). This warranted an exercise of its original and independent jurisdiction, “not for the protection of merely a legal right, but to prevent what this Court considers and treats as a wrong, whether arising from a violation of an unquestionable right, or from a breach of contract or confidence…” [emphasis added] (at 1179). This dicta was cited with approval by Turner VC in Morison v Moat (1861) 68 ER 492 (“Morison”). Besides the law of property and contract, a breach of confidence could be (at [255]): founded upon trust and or confidence, meaning, as I conceive, that the Court fastens the obligation on the conscience of the party, and enforces it against him in the same manner as it enforces against a party to whom a benefit is given the obligation of performing a promise on the faith of which the benefit has been conferred … [emphasis added] 49 Similar language was used by the English Court of Appeal in Saltman Engineering Co Ltd and others v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd [1948] 65 RPC 203 (“Saltman”), which held that “the obligation to respect confidence is not limited to cases where the parties are in a contractual relationship” (at 211). There exists an implied duty of confidentiality that “b[inds] the conscience” of the defendant. So long as a defendant uses “confidential information directly or indirectly obtained from a plaintiff, without [their express or implied consent], 23

Select target paragraph3

Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents