I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 question “has the necessary quality of confidence about it” and if it has been “imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence”. An obligation of confidence will also be found where confidential information has been accessed or acquired without a plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. Upon the satisfaction of these prerequisites, an action for breach of confidence is presumed. This might be displaced where, for instance, the defendant came across the information by accident or was unaware of its confidential nature or believed there to be a strong public interest in disclosing it. Whatever the explanation, the burden will be on the defendant to prove that its conscience was unaffected. In our view, this modified approach places greater focus on the wrongful loss interest without undermining the protection of the wrongful profit interest. 62 A shift in the burden of proof also addresses the practical difficulties faced by owners of confidential information in bringing a claim in confidence. As noted at [55], plaintiffs may often be unaware of the fact that someone has done an act inconsistent with their right of confidentiality. A potential breach could be discovered years after, placing them on an evidential back-foot. Defendants are comparatively better positioned to account for their suspected wrongdoing. 63 It is undisputed that the appellant’s materials, being an integral part of its business operations, were confidential in nature. They were not intended for dissemination and the respondents were under an obligation to preserve their confidentiality. They prima facie breached this obligation by acquiring, circulating and referencing the appellant’s materials without permission. The respondents raise two points in reply. First, the Judge determined that there was evidence that most of the appellant’s materials were downloaded and brought over to the third respondent by Ms Shen, a former employee of I-Admin 30