I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 Demonstration Platform (at [23] above). After having left the appellant’s employ on 30 June 2011, the first respondent retained and abused confidential log-in credentials to surreptitiously access the Demonstration Platform on multiple occasions. He also downloaded “payitem setup_iAdmin.xls”, which the Judge deemed to be confidential in nature. This was plainly in breach of the first respondent’s obligation of confidence. 66 For completeness, the appellant also advanced an alternative case as to the actual use of its confidential materials. Disputing the findings of the Judge (at [24] above), it claimed the respondents wrongfully disclosed the fact that they were in possession of the appellant’s confidential client data to HSBC and ADP. It is not necessary to consider whether these disclosures did in fact constitute wrongful use. It follows from our findings above that the respondents’ very possession of the appellant’s client data without its consent amounted to a breach of confidence. Appropriate remedy 67 We turn our attention to the question of remedies. The appellant’s claim being founded on equity, remedial action is a matter of the court’s discretion. A number of possible remedies were ventilated at the hearing, namely an injunction, an order for delivery up of unauthorised copies of the appellant’s materials, an account of profits and/or damages. We consider the suitability of each of them in turn. 68 Injunctions and interim injunctions are often regarded as vital remedies in confidence cases because they operate to contain the damage suffered from the loss of confidentiality. Mr Lee’s submissions focused on a final injunction, accompanied by an order for delivery up. Implicit in his request was the argument that there exists a risk of continued wrongdoing. Although the Judge 32