This is an update to the article “Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info” published by Dundas Lawyers on 24 February 2026.

On 20 April 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) allowed an appeal in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 (New Aim v Leung) which involved alleged breaches of confidential information arising from a former employee’s disclosure of supplier information to a competitor.^[1]  In their judgement, Moshinsky, Thawley and Button JJ clarified the difference between confidential information under contract and in equity, and the statutory obligation not to improperly use corporate information under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Background to New Aim v Leung

The dispute arose within the employment relationship between New Aim Pty Ltd (New Aim or the Appellant), a “large Australian online retailer” that procures products from China to be drop-shipped to the Australian market, and Mr Man Hung (Jack) Leung (Respondent) who was employed by New Aim for approximately ten (10) years.^[2] 

New Aim used a number of measures to preserve the confidentiality of supplier identity and contact information, including password-controlled access to its purchasing system, restrictions on employee access to supplier information, white-labelling of products and the allocation of New Aim SKUs so that the underlying suppliers could not readily be identified by competitors.

The Respondent had access to the supplier information because of his senior procurement and commercial roles at New Aim.  He had worked with suppliers directly and, because New Aim did not provide him with a company mobile phone, he used his personal phone and WeChat account to communicate with supplier contacts.  The contact details of the relevant supplier representatives were therefore stored in his personal WeChat contacts. 

During his employment, the Respondent developed a personal friendship with the founders of Broers Group Pty Ltd (Broers), an emerging competitor to New Aim.  After the Respondent ceased employment at New Aim in January 2021, he began working for Broers and provided the company with the names and WeChat contact details of seventeen (17) of New Aim’s suppliers^,[3] under the assurance that, if Broers was commercially successful, the Respondent would be rewarded with financial interest in the company.^[4] 

In August 2021, the Appellant became aware that Broers was selling identical products advertised using promotional photography published on New Aim’s website.^[5]

In September 2021, the Appellant initiated proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for breach of contractual, equitable and statutory breach of confidence :

• Contractual breach of confidence under the employment agreement;
• Equitable breach of confidence under common law; and
• Breach of the legislative civil obligation not to improperly use corporate information under section 183(1) of the Corporations Act.

The trial progression of the dispute

• October 2021 – Interlocutory injunction — New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2021] FCA 1329

New Aim commenced proceedings alleging that Mr Leung had disclosed New Aim’s supplier identity and contact information to competitors.  The Court granted interlocutory relief restraining the use of New Aim’s supplier information.

• June 2022 – First trial — New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2022] FCA 722

The matter proceeded to trial, but New Aim’s claims were dismissed.  A key issue was the rejection of New Aim’s expert evidence because of the extent of solicitor involvement in preparing the expert report.  Without that evidence, New Aim failed to establish the “confidential” nature of the disclosed information resulting in the following findings:

A breach of confidence claim failed as the information did not have the necessary quality of confidence.^[6]

The claim under contract failed because ‘confidential information’ was not explicitly defined under the contract and an obligation of confidence was not determined to extend to supplier information.^[7]

A breach of section 183(1) of the Corporations Act failed because information was established to not be confidential and Mr Leung’s use was not improper.^[8]

• May 2023 – First Full Court appeal — New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67; 171 IPR 511

New Aim appealed successfully.  The Full Court found that the primary judge had wrongly focused on where the supplier information was stored, rather than on the nature and content of the information itself.  The Court also found error in the wholesale rejection of the expert evidence.  The matter was remitted for retrial. 

• October 2023 – Remittal issue — New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 3) [2023] FCA 1295

After the appeal, the parties disputed what the Full Court meant by remitting the matter for “retrial”.  The Court held that the order required a new trial, not merely a continuation of the earlier trial.  This allowed the matter to proceed afresh. 

• July 2025 – Retrial — New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2025] FCA 747

At the retrial, New Aim’s claims were again dismissed.  The Court held that New Aim had not established that the broadly pleaded category of all supplier identity and contact information had the necessary quality of confidence.  The contractual and statutory misuse claims also failed. 

• April 2026 – Second Full Court appeal — New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49

New Aim appealed again and succeeded on all three (3) grounds for the Respondent’s breaches of confidence.  The Full Court held that the case should have been considered by reference to the seventeen (17) specific suppliers whose details were disclosed, rather than only by reference to the broader category of all supplier information.  The Court found that the information about those suppliers was confidential and commercially valuable, and that the Respondent had breached his contractual obligations and section 183 of the Corporations Act.

Breach of the contractual obligation of confidence

The issue was whether the supplier identity and contact information fell within the scope of the contractual obligation and the Court held it did,^[9] due to the following relevant factors:

• the Respondent obtained the supplier information because of his employment with New Aim;
• the supplier information related directly to New Aim’s business;
• the information was commercially valuable;
• the identification of suitable suppliers required effort, experience and time;
• the information was capable of giving a competitor a commercial shortcut; and
• the Respondent knew, or ought to have known, that New Aim treated the information as confidential.

Specifically, the Court determined that a breach of confidence should have been found in the case of New Aim v Leung, because:

• the contractual relationship expressly addressed that the Respondent would “obtain access to confidential information relating to the business of New Aim”.^[10] Therefore, he was aware the supplier information was treated as confidential;^[11]
• the Respondent intentionally obtained contact details from the seventeen (17) suppliers while employed and therefore in connection with his contract;^[12]
• the identity and contact details of suppliers was commercially valuable information;^[13] and
• the process for identifying suppliers suitable for the Australian market required effort and time.^[14]

Even if he did not have explicit knowledge of the breaches he was committing by disclosing supplier information, the Respondent ought to have known that their names and contact details were confidential in nature and contractually protected.^[15] 

Breach of the equitable obligation of confidence

Where formalities of a contract are not present, an equitable obligation of confidence may arise where information is imparted in a way that is understood by a recipient as being of a confidential nature.  There must be an unauthorised use of this information.^[16]

It was determined that, while the confidential information had been broadly defined under the contract, it needed to be considered whether the body of information possessed the necessary quality of confidence or was received by the Respondent in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence.^[17]  The information of the seventeen (17) suppliers was confidential and, therefore, the breach of confidence claim should have succeeded.^[18]

For an equitable breach of confidence claim, a plaintiff will generally need to establish that:

• the information was specifically identifiable;
• the information had the necessary quality of confidence;
• the information was received in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and
• there was unauthorised use or disclosure of the information.

In New Aim v Leung, the Full Court held that the relevant focus should have been the information concerning the seventeen specific suppliers disclosed to Broers.  That information was not merely a list of names available to the public, rather it reflected New Aim’s work in identifying suppliers that were suitable for its business and for the Australian market.

The Full Court considered that the supplier information had commercial value because it could save a competitor time and effort in locating reliable suppliers.  The information was also treated by New Aim as confidential, including through the way it managed supplier relationships, product branding, internal systems and access controls.

Accordingly, the Full Court held that the equitable breach of confidence claim should have succeeded.

Overlap of contractual and equitable obligations of confidence

The Court noted at paragraph 31 that:

“New Aim addressed the appeal by dealing first with breach of confidence in equity, then contract, and then its claim for contravention of s 183(1). This approach was understandable given the terms of the particular contract. Logically, a contract claim is anterior to a claim for breach of confidence in equity because the scope of the parties’ contractual obligations with respect to confidential information informs the scope of any equitable obligation, including whether there is any role for equity to intervene at all,”.^[19] 

The nature and scope of contractual confidentiality obligations depend on the express or implicit terms of the relevant contract.^[20]  The employment contract between New Aim and the Respondent included the following confidentiality clause:

“You shall not, during or after your employment with New Aim, use any of the confidential information of New Aim and its subsidiaries for personal gain, in order to disadvantage the company or for any purpose other than for the benefit of New Aim,”.^[21]

As the contract did not define “confidential information”, the Court interpreted the intended meaning to “capture information which, in the employment and commercial context known to them, was to be treated as confidential”.^[22]

The Court chose to consider whether the supplier information was to be treated as confidential within the scope of the equitable grounds of the judgement as the contractual clause prohibiting misuse of confidential information was considered not to operate “in any materially different way from the equitable obligation”.^[23]

The Court reiterated their position, explaining that:

“The parties have conducted the case on the basis that the relief if the contract claim were upheld would be the same as the relief if the claim for breach of confidence in equity were upheld. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to address the issues principally by reference to the breach of confidence case and it is unnecessary to explore the debate about whether equity would generally intervene where there is both a contractual obligation and an equitable obligation of confidence,”.^[24]

Significance of the judgement in the context of employment contracts

This part of the decision is significant for employers as it clarifies that even where a contract does not contain an exhaustive definition of confidential information, supplier information may still be protected if the Court can construe the wording of the contract to extend to information of that kind.  However, reliance on a Court’s hypothetical construction of deficient and incomplete contractual drafting exposes employers to needless legal risks which can be avoided by clear and comprehensive terms of employment.  

Employers should therefore ensure that employment and confidentiality agreements expressly identify the types of business information intended to be protected, including:

• supplier lists;
• customer lists;
• pricing information;
• product sourcing information;
• commercial strategies; and
• contact details.

Obligation of confidence under the Corporations Act

Section 183 of the Corporations Act provides a civil penalty provision where a director or other employee of a corporation misuses information they have obtained in the course of their employment, stating:

• “a person who obtains information because they are, or have been, a director or other officer or employee of a corporation must not improperly use the information to:
• gain an advantage for themselves or someone else; or
• cause detriment to the corporation.”^[25]

Unlike the equitable breach of confidence or obligation of confidence under a contract, section 183 focuses on the improper use of information received within a corporation specifically.^[26]

The Court held that section 183 is not limited to information that is confidential in an equitable sense, being information imparted in circumstances where a reasonable person in the position of the recipient would understand that it was to be treated as confidential.  This has the result that a claim under section 183 does not necessarily rise or fall with an equitable or contractual breach of confidence claim.

Instead, section 183 requires the following four (4) elements:

• the recipient obtained the information because of their position as an employee, officer or director;
• the recipient used that information;
• the recipient’s use of that information was improper; and
• the recipient’s use of information was done for the purpose of gaining an advantage for themselves or someone else or to cause detriment to the company.

IIn New Aim v Leung, it was determined that the confidential information related to the seventeen (17) suppliers was obtained because of the Respondent’s position as an employee of New Aim.^[27] 

He then disclosed that information to Broers, an emerging competitor, with the aim to “totally destroy what I built [at New Aim] in the past 12 years”, amount to “use” of the confidential information.

The Full Court held that this use was improper because it gave Broers a commercial advantage and was inconsistent with the position of trust and access that the Respondent had held at New Aim.  The Court also accepted that the Respondent stood to potentially benefit from Broers’ success, including through the possibility of obtaining a financial interest in the business.^[28]  

As the Respondent was aware of the confidential and commercially valuable nature of the information, it was determined that he had breached section 183.^[29]

Clarification on the distinction between sources of confidentiality obligations

The decision is significant because it shows that confidential information obligations can operate differently depending on the source of the obligation.

An equitable breach of confidence claim focuses on whether the information has the necessary quality of confidence and whether it was misused in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.

A contractual claim focuses on the wording of the agreement and whether the information falls within the scope of the contractual obligation.

A section 183 claim focuses on whether information obtained because of a person’s corporate position was improperly used to gain an advantage or cause detriment.  It is not limited to information that would necessarily satisfy the equitable test for confidential information.

For businesses, this means that the same conduct may give rise to multiple overlapping claims.  It also means that a claim under section 183 may remain available even where there is a dispute about whether the information is confidential in the strict equitable sense.

Key takeaways for businesses

The decision in New Aim v Leung provides several practical lessons for businesses:

1. First, businesses should clearly identify and define confidential information in employment contracts, contractor agreements and consultancy agreements. Generic confidentiality clauses may be helpful, but specific examples are stronger.
2. Second, businesses should take practical steps to protect information. Courts will look at whether the business treated the information as confidential.  This may include password protection, limited access rights, internal policies, confidentiality markings, employee training and procedures for departing employees.
3. Third, supplier and customer information can be confidential where it reflects commercial effort, experience or know-how. The fact that individual supplier names or contact details might be discoverable with enough research does not automatically prevent the information from being confidential.
4. Fourth, businesses should be careful when employees leave and join competitors. Exit processes should include reminders about confidentiality obligations, return of company property, removal of access to systems and confirmation that company information has not been retained or copied.

Conclusion

New Aim v Leung confirms that Australian law protects commercially valuable business information through several overlapping sources: equity, contract and statute.

The decision is particularly important for businesses that rely on supplier networks, customer relationships, sourcing channels or other commercially sensitive information.  It demonstrates that supplier identity and contact information may be protected where it is commercially valuable, treated as confidential, and obtained through a position of trust within the business.

For employers, the case is a reminder that confidentiality protection should not be left to implication.  Clear contractual drafting, practical information controls and careful employee exit processes remain essential.

Links and further references

Legislation

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Cases in the New Aim v Leung dispute

New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2021] FCA 1329

New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2022] FCA 722

New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67; 171 IPR 511

New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 3) [2023] FCA 1295

New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2025] FCA 747

New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49

Cases on breach of confidence by Dundas Lawyers

Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 106

Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265

Further information

If you need advice on obligations of confidence, contact us for a confidential and obligation‑free discussion.

Disclaimer

This article contains general commentary only.  You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances

---

[1]  In their judgement, Moshinsky, Thawley and [1] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [25].

[2] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [1].

[3] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [5].

[4] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [4].

[5] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [6].

[6] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [17]; New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2022] FCA 722 at [234].

[7] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [17]; New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2022] FCA 722 at [244]-[246].

[8] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [17]; New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2022] FCA 722 at [251].

[9] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [30].

[10] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [82].

[11] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [82].

[12] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [83].

[13] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [84].

[14] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [85].

[15] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [87].

[16] Australian Law Reform Commission, Obligations of Confidence (Web page, 16 August 2010) at [15.127].

[17] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [30].

[18] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [30].

[19] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [31].

[20] Australian Law Reform Commission, Obligations of Confidence (Web page, 16 August 2010) at [15.126].

[21] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [33].

[22] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [34].

[23] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [34].

[24] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [35].

[25] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 183(1).

[26] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [124].

[27] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [153].

[28] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [154].

[29] New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC 49 at [155]-[162].

---

Related insights