Confidential No More? New Aim Took Their Shot and Missed

When a former executive walks away with your China-based supplier list and gives it to a competitor, you’d expect a legal showdown. That’s exactly what happened in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2025] FCA 747 —but the result was not what New Aim hoped for.

In this long-running saga, the Federal Court found that New Aim’s claims for breach of confidence, breach of contract, and breach of s 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) all fell short. Why? Because the supplier information simply didn’t meet the legal threshold of “confidentiality”.

⚖️ What New Aim Argued

New Aim is a major online retailer importing from China. It claimed its former Chief Commercial Officer, Mr Leung, misused confidential supplier information—particularly WeChat contacts and sourcing intel—after leaving to work with rival businesses Broers and Sun Yee.

The alleged “New Aim Confidential Information” included:

• Supplier identities and contact details (especially the WeChat contact list);

• Wholesale prices and other commercial data.

New Aim argued this information was compiled through significant internal effort and should be protected by equity, contract, and s 183.

🧯 But the Court Disagreed

Justice Neskovcin methodically dismantled the claim:

🔍 1. Not Sufficiently Specific

The alleged confidential information wasn’t identified with enough precision—supplier lists without deeper operational context were too generic.

🕵️‍♂️ 2. No Necessary Quality of Confidence

New Aim’s suppliers were discoverable via public sources like Alibaba and the Canton Fair. Many of the suppliers openly advertised their relationships with New Aim, or at least didn’t treat them as secret.

🧱 3. Insufficient Safeguards

While New Aim used access controls on its internal systems, it allowed employees—including Mr Leung—to store supplier contacts on personal WeChat accounts. There was no clear evidence of policies prohibiting this.

📱 4. Personal Know-How ≠ Protected IP

Mr Leung’s “mental stock of knowledge”—including who supplied what and who was good—was not protected under confidentiality doctrines unless clearly separated and secured.

🚫 5. No Breach of s 183

Because the supplier information wasn’t confidential, its use by Mr Leung post-employment didn’t breach s 183 (which prohibits improper use of information obtained as a company officer).

💡 Key Lessons for Businesses

• You can’t just call it “confidential” and expect it to be. The Court wants proof: technical secrecy, access controls, and clear internal policies.

• WeChat is not a secure container for proprietary information. If staff are using personal messaging apps for business, you may have a leak in your IP defences.

• Former employees aren’t fiduciaries forever. Once their duties end, so do their restraints—unless equity or contract says otherwise.

📌 Final Thought

In a commercial world that thrives on supplier relationships, New Aim v Leung (No 4) is a reminder: if your IP walks out the door with your staff, you’d better hope it was nailed down first.