I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 straightforward trial. On this hypothesis, the respondents might well have chosen to pursue a different channel or litigation strategy from the one they did in fact pursue. Further, the Judge would have likely heard other arguments from the respondents in their defence and possibly have had to examine further evidence relevant to that. It would therefore be prejudicial to the respondents to make a finding of infringement based solely on the fact of possession and circulation. In the circumstances, we think it is too late in the day for the appellant to seek to pursue its lower level claim of copyright infringement at the appeal. 36 This leaves the appellant’s higher level claim. The appellant neither compared the Category 3 materials with the respondents’ materials nor made any submissions on the Category 4 materials in the proceedings below (at [19] above). Additionally, no challenge has been mounted against the Judge’s finding that there was no substantial copying of the Category 1 materials. The argument before us is thus confined to the substantial reproduction of Category 2 materials, the Payitem Bibles. 37 The infringement of copyright in the Payitem Bibles is apparently evidenced by email correspondence between the first respondent and Ms Lim. On 16 August 2011, the first respondent sent an email to Ms Lim, attaching copies of the Payitem Bibles (see [12(d)] above). To save time and costs, Ms Lim was to merge these files with the third respondent’s own list of payitems, to develop the third respondent’s payitem bible. On 17 August 2011, Ms Lim sent the first respondent an Excel document titled “Master_Payitem_Singapore.xls”. This was the first version of the third respondent’s payitem bible. An analysis of this document by the appellant’s coding expert, Mr Harish Pillay (“Mr Pillay”), revealed that a significant part of 18