I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 ordered a delivery up of “any materials belonging to the [appellant]” (GD at [172]), which the respondents say they have complied with, Mr Lee asserted that this order did not include any “infringing copies” of the appellant’s materials. He referred to the emails between the first respondent and Ms Lim attaching different iterations of the third respondent’s payitem bible. These documents should have also been subject to delivery up because the respondents would otherwise retain access to material belonging to the appellant, located therein. 69 Where a plaintiff establishes that (i) there has been a wrongful interference with their legal or equitable rights; and (ii) the defendant intends to continue this wrong, then, barring any special circumstances, he is prima facie entitled to an injunction (Breach of Confidence at para [18.48], citing Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd and another v British Celanese Ltd and others [1953] 2 WLR 58 at 81–82). The Judge found the third respondent’s own software and business material to be sufficiently distinct from the appellant’s Category 1 and 2 materials. There is no suggestion, that having now acquired their own intellectual property, the respondents are still relying on the appellant’s materials in the course of the third respondent’s business. Presumably, they have extracted any benefit from these files. Proceeding on this basis, there would be little benefit in or justification for the grant of an injunction. 70 The same reasoning applies to an order for delivery up. Referencing the first respondent’s email correspondence with Ms Lim, there is limited utility in calling for a delivery up or deletion of the earlier versions of the respondents’ payitem bible because these files are no longer in use. The respondents have since created “Payitem Bible_Singapore.xls”. The appellant contends that wrongful copies of its materials should nonetheless be “returned or destroyed 33