I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting 19 [2020] SGCA 32 The Judge also dismissed the appellant’s claim in relation to the Category 3 materials, this being “Copy of ePayroll eHR pricing for all regions(04 Jan 2011).xls”, “RR to Li Lian.zip”, “Standard Imp Template.zip” and “SG Client_Imp Template.xls”. The appellant failed to identify and compare infringing materials belonging to the respondents that were allegedly copied from the Category 3 materials (GD at [86]). The appellant made no substantive submissions on the infringement of copyright in the Category 4 materials and the Judge therefore did not consider it necessary to deal with this. Breach of confidence 20 As to the claim for breach of confidence, the Judge noted that there are three well-established elements of a successful claim (Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ting Chong Chai and others [2015] 1 SLR 163 (“Clearlab”) at [64] citing Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41 (“Coco”) at 47): (a) the information must possess the quality of confidentiality; (b) the information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and (c) there must have been some unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party from whom the information originated. The Judge considered that while the respondents owed the appellant obligations of confidence (GD at [111]–[113]), there had been no use of its confidential information in the relevant sense (GD at [107]). In short, it was only the third limb on which the appellant’s case failed before the Judge. 21 The appellant pointed to four incidents that were said to constitute a breach of confidence. First, it was contended that the third respondent made use 11