I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 appellant disputes the Judge’s finding that it did not specifically plead breach of confidence by mere taking. Further, relying on the dicta in Clearlab and relevant English and Australian authorities, the appellant argues that the Judge adopted an unduly narrow approach towards the requirement of unauthorised use, which falls short of meeting the policy objectives underpinning the law of confidence. In the alternative, there is sufficient evidence to bear out a finding of there being actual use of the appellant’s confidential materials by the respondents. 28 In reply, the respondents assert that there has been a substantial change in the appellant’s case. Its claims of copyright infringement and breach of confidence in Suit 585/2013 were premised on the respondents’ use and/or substantial copying of its materials. Having failed to prove this, the appellant is reframing its case on appeal. It now says that the respondents are liable simply because they possessed and circulated unauthorised copies of its materials. It would be improper and prejudicial to allow the appellant to advance this position on appeal. 29 Further, the respondents maintain that the Judge rightly found that the appellant’s breach of confidence claim failed because it had not proved the use of its materials. The appellant’s reliance on the “expansive approach” in Clearlab is said to be misguided. The court there did not seek to lay down a general extension of breach of confidence to situations of mere possession. The foreign cases relied on by the appellant similarly do not stand for this proposition. 14