I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 (Shanghai) (GD at [148]–[150]). The respondents, it is said, cannot be held responsible for her acts of taking. Second, the appellant is precluded from advancing a claim for breach of confidence in respect of materials circulated by the first respondent, such as the Payitem Bibles, as well as items stored on the Thinkpad. This is because these acts of possession and circulation were dealt with by the Judge as breaches of the first respondent’s non-disclosure agreement (GD at [139]–[140]) and those findings were not appealed against. We reject these contentions. 64 While Ms Shen may have been directly responsible for certain acts of taking, this does not absolve the respondents from wrongdoing. The appellant’s materials were specifically acquired to be reviewed and potentially used for the third respondent’s benefit. The first and second respondents cannot feign ignorance as they were heavily involved in the third respondent’s software development and operations. The mass deletions from the Thinkpad and the Dell Server on the day of the APO execution demonstrate that they knew they were not allowed to be in possession of the appellant’s materials. As for the argument that these are to be analysed in the context of the claim for breach of the non-disclosure agreement, a breach of the first respondent’s contractual obligations is a distinct cause of action from a claim premised on equitable obligations of confidence. The appellant is not foreclosed from relying on the same categories of materials to pursue its claim in confidence. On the available evidence, the respondents have done nothing to displace the presumption that their conscience was negatively affected. We accordingly find that the possession and referencing of the appellant’s confidential materials constituted acts in breach of confidence. 65 We make the same finding in respect of the first respondent’s downloading of the appellant’s database “payitem setup_iAdmin.xls” from the 31