New Aim Pty ltd v Leung

New Aim Pty Ltd sought relief against Leung, Li, Xiao, Sun Yee and Broers, alleging breaches of equitable obligations, statutory obligations, and employment contracts concerning the use of confidential information. The court had to decide whether the information was confidential and subject to an equitable obligation of confidence, whether the information was required to be a trade secret, whether there was a breach of contract, and whether the information was accumulated knowledge of the employee that could be used post-termination of employment. Additionally, the court had to assess the independence of expert evidence, including the duties and responsibilities of experts and solicitors, and the impact of undisclosed authorship of expert reports on the admissibility of the evidence.

The court concluded that the confidential information did not include the WeChat list of contacts maintained on an employee's personal mobile phone, and therefore, there was no breach of the equitable obligation of confidence. The court found that the information was not required to be a trade secret and was not accumulated knowledge of the employee that could be used post-termination of employment. The court rejected the entirety of the expert evidence due to undisclosed authorship of the report, which impacted the independence of the expert. The statutory claim under s 183 of the Corporations Act failed because the broader view of the duty not to misuse information was not applicable in this case.

The court dismissed the proceeding against the first, third, fourth and fifth respondents, listed the proceeding for further hearing, and granted liberty to apply for the discharge of interlocutory injunction orders. The court adjourned further submissions on consequential issues, including costs, variation or discharge of confidentiality orders, and determination of loss pursuant to the undertaking as to damages given by the applicant as the condition of interlocutory relief. The court granted liberty to apply generally.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.