I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 therefore turns on whether the respondents reproduced the organisation of the Payitem Bibles. 41 In our judgment, the third respondent’s payitem bible drafts were not material reproductions of the appellant’s files. While these drafts contained duplicated Excel sheets from the Payitem Bibles, a closer examination of Mr Pillay’s report reveals minor differences in arrangement from the earliest version of “MasterPayitem_Singapore.xls”. In merging the appellant’s and third respondent’s lists of payitems, Ms Lim added an additional blank column entitled “Tax Cat”, not found in the Payitem Bibles. 42 As for the third respondent’s finalised payitem bible, this exhibits more significant modifications. One example is the inclusion of a sophisticated naming convention which encodes payitem names to give additional information about each payitem. The Payitem Bibles were not simply repurposed for the third respondent’s business but were transformed into a new and unique product. In our judgment, the Judge correctly found that the respondents’ database tables were sufficiently distinguishable from the Payitem Bibles and that “[t]he process by which [the third respondent’s] materials were created did not go towards the quality of those materials” (GD at [106]). The appellant’s claim for copyright infringement was therefore correctly rejected by the Judge and we dismiss that part of its appeal. Reviewing breach of confidence 43 We turn to the claim for breach of confidence. Traditionally, a claim for breach of confidence rested on three elements being shown: (i) that the information is confidential in nature, (ii) that it was imparted in circumstances of confidence; and (iii) that it has been used without authorisation and to the detriment of the plaintiff (see [20] above). However, in recent years, the 20