I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 “Master_Payitem_Singapore.xls” was identical to the Payitem Bibles; and that Ms Lim had duplicated two Excel “sheets” from the Payitem Bibles. 38 Ms Lim sent the first respondent three other emails between 23 and 25 August 2011, attaching updated iterations of “Master_Payitem_Singapore.xls”. Mr Pillay’s analysis indicated that content from the Payitem Bibles was also reproduced in these versions, although Ms Lim made edits to the original draft (for instance, by adding new rows and re-arranging the order and sequence of some of the payitem descriptions). The third respondent’s payitem bible underwent further development between August and September 2011. The final “Payitem Bible_Singapore.xls” was attached in an email from the first respondent to Ms Shen on 19 September 2011. 39 The appellant argues that the Judge erred in concluding that the arrangement of the contents in “Payitem Bible_Singapore.xls” was sufficiently distinct from the Payitem Bibles because he confined his assessment to the final product. He failed to consider that in the course of creating “Payitem Bible_Singapore.xls”, there was wholesale copying, without any modification, of the arrangement of the Payitem Bibles. At least seven iterations of the third respondent’s payitem bible, beginning with “MasterPayitem_Singapore.xls”, contained duplicated Excel sheets from the Payitem Bibles. These were infringing material reproductions. The series of emails between the respondents also showed that the third respondent’s payitem bible had been developed by way of unauthorised adaptation. 40 The Judge found that the appellant’s database tables and the Excel files generated therefrom were “original [and attracted copyright protection] by dint of the creative effort invested to organise the relevant information into a format suitable for computer processing” (GD at [79]). The question of infringement 19