Case note: New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49
On 20 April 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia delivered an important decision for employers seeking to protect supplier relationships and commercially valuable business information.
In New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49, the Court held that the identity and contact details of a company’s key suppliers can constitute confidential information and, significantly, held that s 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is not confined to confidential information.
Background
New Aim Pty Ltd is a major Australian retailer that sources products from suppliers throughout China. Mr Leung worked for New Aim for approximately ten years and held the position of Chief Commercial Officer.
After leaving New Aim in January 2021, Mr Leung shared the contact details of 17 of New Aim’s suppliers with Broers Group Pty Ltd, a newly established competitor. By July 2021, Mr Leung had joined Broers Group as an employee.
In September 2021, New Aim took Mr Leung and Broers Group to court alleging that Mr Leung breached his employment contract, fiduciary duties, and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by misusing confidential information.
The litigation has been extensive, involving multiple hearings, appeals, and a retrial. The most recent appeal before the Full Court arose from the second trial, in which New Aim’s claims had largely failed because the primary judge concluded that the supplier information was not confidential.
The Full Court disagreed, finding that the supplier information was confidential and that Mr Leung had breached his contractual obligation to his former employer.
Supplier information was confidential
At first instance, the Federal Court of Australia was not satisfied that the identity and contact details of New Aim’s suppliers, including historical suppliers and those no longer commercially relevant, constituted confidential information to New Aim.1
The Full Court adopted a different approach, finding that the specific identity and contact details of 17 current suppliers of New Aim at the time Mr Leung provided the contact details to Broers Group, was commercially sensitive and confidential to New Aim.
The Full Court reasoned that supplier relationships were procured by New Aim by way of significant commercial effort, and the relevant supplier information was commercially valuable to New Aim and likely to be valuable to others in the industry, including New Aim’s competitors.
In assessing whether information was confidential, the Full Court found that steps taken by New Aim to protect supplier identities through white-labelling, password-protected systems and restricted internal access signalled the confidential nature of the information.
The information was not mere ‘know how’
Mr Leung argued that the relevant supplier information allegedly disclosed was not confidential to New Aim, but formed part of his general skill, experience, and know-how acquired throughout his career. The Full Court rejected this submission.
While employees are entitled to use their accumulated skills and experience after leaving their employment, the Court found that the information relating to the 17 suppliers was readily identifiable and separate from Mr Leung’s general knowledge.
Rather than relying on memory and general know-how, Mr Leung retained the supplier information in his WeChat contacts on his personal telephone, together with comments identifying the products supplied by each contact.
Breach of Fiduciary Duties
In view of the above, the Full Court concluded that Mr Leung breached the equitable obligation of confidence in disclosing information confidential obtained in the course of his employment with New Aim.
Breach of Confidentiality Obligations
The Full Court also held that Mr Leung breached a confidentiality clause in his employment contract by disclosing confidential information to Broers Group.
Section 183 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Section 183(1) prohibits a person who obtains information because they are, or have been, a director, officer, or employee of a corporation, from improperly using that information:
- to gain an advantage for themselves or another person; or
- to cause detriment to the corporation.
The primary judge held that s 183 only applied to confidential information, and on the basis that the relevant information was not deemed to be confidential in nature, found no breach.
The Full Court rejected this interpretation, emphasising that s 183 simply refers to ‘information’, not ‘confidential information’.
The Court held that the proper inquiry under s 183 requires consideration of three questions:
- What information was obtained?
- Was the information obtained because the person was a director, officer, or employee?
- Was the information improperly used to obtain an advantage or cause detriment?
Critically, while confidentiality remains relevant when assessing impropriety, it is not a prerequisite for liability under s 183. The relevant test is whether, among other things, information was improperly used to obtain an advantage or cause detriment.
The Full Court characterised s 183 as a statutory extension of corporate fiduciary obligations, rather than a mere codification of the equitable action for breach of confidence. The decision therefore significantly broadens the practical reach of the provision.
Applying this principle, the Court found that Mr Leung improperly used information obtained through his position at New Aim to benefit a competitor and advance his own interests.
Claims against Broers Group Pty Ltd and Mr Sun Yee
New Aim also brought derivative claims against Broers Group, and Sun Yee International Pty Ltd, the latter being another competitor of New Aim who re-sold products sourced by Broers Group and allegedly benefitted from the disclosure of confidential information by Mr Leung.
At first instance, the claims against Broers Group and Sun Yee were unsuccessful due to the failure of the breach of confidence claim against Mr Leung.
On appeal, the Full Court found that there was, among other things, sufficient evidence to suggest that key personnel of Broers Group and Sun Yee knew, or were wilfully blind to the likelihood, that the information provided by Mr Leung was confidential. For example, it was found that the sole directors of Broers Group and Sun Yee knew of Mr Leung’s long-standing employment with New Aim and knew about New Aim’s business.
Accordingly, the Full Court remitted the claims against Broers Group and Mr Yee to the primary judge for further hearing and determination.
New Aim was found to be entitled to its costs of the appeal to the Full Court.
Key takeaways
The decision of the Full Court reinforces three important principles:
- Information relating to supplier identities and contact details may be confidential where significant commercial effort is required to obtain that information.
- Employers should take active steps to protect commercially sensitive information including from former employees, particularly where employees use personal devices capable of storing commercially sensitive information.
- Section 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) has a broader operation than previously understood and can apply even where information is not technically confidential.
The case is a timely reminder that valuable business information may remain protected long after employment ends, particularly where an advantage is obtained or a detriment is suffered due to misuse.
Contact us
If you have any questions or concerns arising from this decision, please contact a member of our Litigation & Dispute Resolution team.
References
1. New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2025] FCA 747.
| Disclaimer: This publication contains comments of a general nature only and is provided as an information service. It is not intended to be relied upon, nor is it a substitute for specific professional advice. No responsibility can be accepted by Rigby Cooke Lawyers or the authors for loss occasioned to any person doing anything as a result of any material in this publication.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.© 2026 Rigby Cooke Lawyers |