I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 respondent’s] software system and business operations”. It is also telling that the Judge examined the question of copyright infringement through this lens. Addressing arguments on the Category 1 materials, the Judge observed that the appellant “only submitted that two main aspects of its software were substantially reproduced as part of [the third respondent’s] software” [emphasis added] (GD at [52]). He distinguished this from the general utilisation of the appellant’s materials, which was considered as part of the breach of confidence claim. 34 It was acknowledged before us that nowhere in the appellant’s closing submissions was relief sought purely on the basis of mere possession and circulation. Nevertheless, Mr Lee sought to persuade us that the appellant should not be precluded from advancing such a case because the facts relevant to this lower level claim of infringement were fully canvassed in the trial below. Nexia’s forensic evidence showed that the respondents had copied and were in possession of the appellant’s materials. More significantly, this fact was admitted by the respondents in their pleadings. A complete action in copyright, premised on the mere taking of the appellant’s materials and to which the respondents have no defence, is therefore embedded within the body of evidence. 35 Pertinently, however, Mr Lee conceded that the Judge’s attention had not been directed specifically to the appellant’s lower level claim which rested simply on the fact of copying. In our judgment, had that alternative case been signposted, the trial would have proceeded quite differently. The question of infringement would have been resolved simply by examining what materials were in the respondents’ possession and where those materials came from. There would have been no need for the parties to canvass issues of substantial reproduction and adaptation, making for a shorter and much more 17