I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting: Copyright Infringement and Breach of Confidence Dispute
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd appealed a High Court decision against Hong Ying Ting, Liu Jia Wei, Nice Payroll Pte Ltd, and Li Yong, regarding copyright infringement and breach of confidence related to I-Admin's payroll processing software and business materials. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding a breach of confidence but no copyright infringement. The court remitted the case to the lower court to assess equitable damages.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Copyright infringement and breach of confidence case between I-Admin and its former employees. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding a breach of confidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Appellant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Hong Ying Ting | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Liu Jia Wei | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Nice Payroll Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Li Yong | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- I-Admin sued its former employees for copyright infringement and breach of confidence.
- The respondents accessed and downloaded I-Admin's copyrighted and confidential material.
- The respondents used the material to develop a competing payroll business.
- The High Court initially found in favor of the respondents.
- The Court of Appeal overturned part of the decision, finding a breach of confidence.
- The first respondent accessed the appellant’s server on a number of occasions between April and June 2012 and March and May 2013.
- The first respondent also downloaded “payitem setup_iAdmin.xls” from the Demonstration Platform on 19 April 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others, Civil Appeal No 5 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 32
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First respondent joined the appellant. | |
| First respondent expressed frustrations to the second respondent about the appellant's software. | |
| Fourth respondent agreed to invest in the first and second respondents’ efforts to develop a payroll software. | |
| Third respondent incorporated. | |
| First and second respondents resigned from the appellant and I-Admin (Shanghai). | |
| Payroll calculation engine developed by the first and second respondents was completed. | |
| First and second respondents were appointed as the third respondent’s directors and allotted shares. | |
| Appellant came across the third respondent’s website. | |
| Appellant commenced Suit 585/2013. | |
| Anton Pillar order granted. | |
| Anton Pillar order executed at the third respondent’s premises. | |
| Appellant obtained a discovery order against the four respondents. | |
| First and second respondents reviewed the recovered files. | |
| Respondents lodged a police report. | |
| First respondent emailed HSBC and ADP. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The court found no copyright infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 2 SLR 165
- Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court found a breach of confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 163
- [1969] RPC 41
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction
- Delivery up of unauthorized copies
- Account of profits
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
- Breach of Confidence
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Information Technology
- Outsourcing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 127 | Singapore | The High Court judge found in favor of the respondents and held there was no copyright infringement or breach of confidence. This decision was appealed. |
| Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 165 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that copyright would only be infringed if the respondents had copied a substantial part of the copyrighted works. |
| Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ting Chong Chai and others | N/A | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 163 | Singapore | Cited for the three well-established elements of a successful claim for breach of confidence. |
| Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1969] RPC 41 | N/A | Cited for the three well-established elements of a successful claim for breach of confidence. |
| Lord and Lady Perceval v Phipps | N/A | Yes | (1813) 35 ER 225 | N/A | Cited to show that confidentiality was not, of itself, a basis for legal protection but only an indirectly protected interest. |
| Gee v Pritchard | N/A | Yes | (1818) 36 ER 670 | N/A | Cited to show that confidentiality was not, of itself, a basis for legal protection but only an indirectly protected interest. |
| Prince Albert v Strange | N/A | Yes | (1849) 41 ER 1171 | N/A | Cited as one of the earliest cases that recognised the existence of an independent action for breach of confidence. |
| Prince Albert v Strange and others | N/A | Yes | (1849) 64 ER 293 | N/A | Cited for grounding his reasoning in the common law protection of “property”. |
| Morison v Moat | N/A | Yes | (1861) 68 ER 492 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a breach of confidence could be founded upon trust and or confidence. |
| Saltman Engineering Co Ltd and others v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1948] 65 RPC 203 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the obligation to respect confidence is not limited to cases where the parties are in a contractual relationship. |
| Seager v Copydex Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1967] 1 WLR 923 | N/A | Cited for the principle that he who has received information in confidence shall not take unfair advantage of it. |
| X Pte Ltd and another v CDE | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 575 | Singapore | Cited for the three elements for a successful claim for breach of confidence. |
| Adinop Co Ltd v Rovithai Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 808 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the intervention of equity ultimately depends on conscience. |
| Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Ltd and others v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health | N/A | Yes | (1990) 17 IPR 545 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an obligation of conscience is to respect the confidence [of the relevant information], not merely to refrain from causing detriment to the plaintiff. |
| Imerman v Tchenguiz and others | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 WLR 592 | N/A | Cited for relaxing the prerequisite of use and detriment and held that the act of looking at documents, which one knows to be confidential or intentionally obtaining [confidential] information, secretly and knowing that the claimant reasonably expects it to be private, is itself a breach of confidence. |
| Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd and another v British Celanese Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [1953] 2 WLR 58 | N/A | Cited for the principle that 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. |
| Lunn Poly Ltd and another v Liverpool & Lancashire Properties Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 EGLR 2 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a court is not limited to any specific basis for assessing damages. |
| Seager v Copydex Ltd (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1969] 1 WLR 809 | N/A | Cited for the principle that damages were to be assessed at “the value of the [confidential] information”. |
| Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 655 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court has the power to grant all reliefs and remedies at law and equity, including damages in addition to, or in substitution for, an injunction or specific performance. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (c 27) (UK) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Payroll Systems
- HRIS
- Source Codes
- Payitem Bibles
- Confidential Information
- Anton Pillar Order
- Demonstration Platform
15.2 Keywords
- copyright
- breach of confidence
- payroll software
- trade secrets
- former employees
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Confidence | 95 |
| Copyrights | 75 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Employment Law
- Information Technology