I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 Modified approach 58 Having determined that the wrongful loss interest is a legitimate objective undergirding the law of breach of confidence, we consider that the current legal framework does not adequately safeguard this interest or offer recourse where it has been affected. The requirement of unauthorised use and detriment has held back the development of the law by overemphasising the wrongful gain interest at the expense of the wrongful loss interest. 59 In evaluating how this imbalance ought to be rectified, we take cognisance of recent developments in England and Australia. In Imerman v Tchenguiz and others [2011] 2 WLR 592 (“Imerman”) the English Court of Appeal relaxed the prerequisite of use and detriment and held that the act of looking at documents, which one knows to be confidential or “intentionally obtaining [confidential] information, secretly and knowing that the claimant reasonably expects it to be private, is itself a breach of confidence” (per Lord Neuberger MR at [68]). These are actionable wrongs because “the information will, through the unauthorised act[s] of the defendant, either lose its confidential character, or will at least be at risk of doing so” (Imerman at [69]). The reasoning in Imerman emphasises a plaintiff’s right to preserve the confidentiality of their information, echoing the substance of the wrongful loss interest. The Federal Court of Australia in Smith Kline similarly held that the court’s equitable jurisdiction to grant relief for a breach of confidence may be invoked where there is “actual or threatened abuse of confidential information” [emphasis added] (at 593). An obligation of confidence may be breached even where a wrongdoer has yet to actually profit from misuse. 60 These decisions were also discussed by the High Court in Clearlab. By way of background, the plaintiff company in Clearlab manufactured and sold 28