Court rules former officer breached confidence by sharing supplier contacts on WeChat
Australia's Full Federal Court found a former executive breached confidence, contract, and corporate law by sharing supplier contacts with rivals.
In New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49, decided 20 April 2026, Justices Moshinsky, Thawley, and Button allowed the appeal by New Aim Pty Ltd, a large Australian online retailer selling over 6,000 products sourced from about 400 suppliers.
The dispute centred on Man Hung (Jack) Leung, who worked for New Aim for around 10 years. He served as Head of New Aim's Buyer Team from 2015 to July 2020, responsible for sourcing products from suppliers in China, before becoming Chief Commercial Officer. He left New Aim in January 2021.
Between January and July 2021, after his departure, Leung disclosed the names and contact details of individuals associated with 17 New Aim suppliers to Broers Group Pty Ltd, a newly established online retailing business co-founded by Mr Dai, a friend of Leung's since they met around 2015, and Mr Chen, whom Leung had met at a social occasion in December 2020. Mr Chen was Broers' sole director. Leung shared the contacts by sharing WeChat contact details stored on his phone. New Aim alleged that Sun Yee International Pty Ltd, a separate online retailing competitor directed by Mr Dai, purchased products from Broers sourced through those contacts and on-sold them.
The Full Court found the identity and contact details of the 17 suppliers constituted confidential information. The suppliers were reliable, current and commercially valuable, supplying quality products suitable for the Australian market. New Aim protected this information through white-labelling its products and restricting employee access to its purchasing system. Leung personally knew of and supported these protections during his employment.
The court found Leung breached both his equitable duty of confidence and Clause 33 of his employment contract, which obliged him to maintain the confidentiality of New Aim's information during and after his employment. The contract claim succeeded on grounds equivalent to those for the equitable breach of confidence claim.
On the corporate law front, the Full Court delivered a significant ruling on section 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which prohibits directors, officers and employees from improperly using information obtained through their corporate position. The primary judge had dismissed this claim on the basis that there could be no improper use of information under section 183(1) if there had been no improper use of information under the general rules of equity. The Full Court rejected that interpretation and found that the earlier decision in Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 2, to the extent it held otherwise, was wrong. The Full Court found that Leung had contravened section 183(1).
The court held that "information" under section 183(1) extends beyond information that equity would protect. Even if the information did not meet the equitable threshold for confidentiality, the degree of confidentiality and the circumstances of its misuse supported a finding of improper use under the statute.
The court remitted the matter for further hearing, including determination of the derivative breach of confidence claims against Broers and Sun Yee, and determination of questions of relief against Leung.
Corrs Chambers Westgarth represented New Aim.
