Special leave refused in Leung v New Aim

We recently discussed (here) the Full Federal Court’s decision in New Aim v Leung [2026] FCAFC 49. In that case the former Chief Commercial Officer of New Aim (Mr Leung) shared the WeChat details of 17 New Aim suppliers with a competitor. Overturning the trial judge’s findings, the Full Federal Court held that the WeChat contact details were confidential and that he had therefore breached his equitable and contractual obligations of confidence.

Of particular significance was the Full Court’s finding that Mr Leung had also contravened section 183(1) of the Corporations Act. That section states that 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.

The trial judge had found that the WeChat contact details were not confidential and therefore Mr Leung’s use of this ‘information’ was not improper.

However, the Full Court held that section 183(1) does not require that the information be ‘confidential information’ of the kind protectable in equity and that the section could apply to information protected by an agreement between the corporation and its employee, director or officer, regardless of whether the information is protected in equity or not. The central issue raised in s 183(1), the Full Court held was how the information was acquired, specifically, whether the information was acquired because of the person’s position.

The High Court has now rejected Mr Leung’s application for special leave to appeal

Mr Leung sought special leave to appeal, arguing among other things that the Full Court wrongly departed from the decision in Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 2, which Mr Leung argued had stood for the proposition that section 183(1) that there could be no improper use of information within the meaning of s 183(1) if there has been no improper use of information under the general rules of equity.

On 8 October 2026, six Justices refused special leave with costs stating that the appeal had ‘insufficient prospects of success’.

This means that the Full Court’s broader reading of s 183(1) now stands, giving businesses a standalone claim against employees who improperly use information obtained because of their position, even where that information falls short of equitable confidentiality.

Feature image from Wikimedia Commons, Hallsafe, ‘Hall’s Safe & Lock Co Vault Door – Milwaukee circa 1886’, CC BY-SA 4.0.