I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 appellant failed to prove that the respondents had made unauthorised use of this information (GD at [133]–[134]). 24 Lastly, the Judge considered the disclosures made by the first and second respondents to HSBC and ADP. The Judge considered that the first and second respondents were not obliged to obtain the appellant’s authorisation before disclosing to HSBC and ADP that they had come into possession of their confidential client data (GD at [137]). 25 While the appellant failed to prove the unauthorised use of its materials, the Judge nonetheless accepted that the “reference or reviewing” of these materials was made out on the evidence before him (GD at [123]). The respondents had, for instance, reviewed the appellant’s Java source codes (located in the “From Zaza” folder on the Dell Server) at least 10 times in the course of the third respondent’s business (GD at [120(h)]). The first respondent had also repeatedly accessed the Demonstration Platform to refer to the confidential information that it hosted (GD at [131]). The parties’ cases 26 The appellant asserts that its copyright in the Category 1 to 3 materials was infringed in two main ways: the respondents (i) were in possession of unauthorised copies of these materials; and (ii) circulated them by email without authorisation. In respect of the Category 2 materials, the respondents also substantially reproduced the Payitem Bibles in the course of creating “Payitem Bible_Singapore.xls”. 27 The appellant further contends that the Judge erred in finding there was no breach of confidence in relation to the Category 1 to 4 materials because it had not been shown that the respondents did make use of the same. The 13