Litigation and dispute resolution

Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached ASX Listing Rule 3.1A, which requires the continuous disclosure of information related to the financial performance of an entity.

Summary of continuous disclosure obligation

Continuous disclosure requires Australian listed public companies to publish information about matters that could materially affect their share price in a timely manner and in accordance with ASX Listing Rules and other relevant legislation.[1]

Section 674(2)(c)-(d) of the Corporations Actstates that if:

  • the information is not generally available; and
  • a reasonable person would expect the information, if it were generally available, to have a material effect on the price or value of ED securities of the entity;

the entity must notify the market operator of that information“.[2]

Background to ASIC v Nuix

ASIC alleged that from 18 January to 15 February 2021, Nuix contravened section 674(2) of the Corporations Act by:

  • failing to disclose the 2021 financial year annualised contract value (1HFY21 ACV) result to the ASX;
  • where Nuix was aware of the result;
  • the result was not generally available; and
  • a reasonable person would expect the result to have a material effect on the price of Nuix’s shares.
  • ASIC further claimed Nuix published misleading financial forecasts and that Nuix’s directors had breached their duties by letting the forecasts reach the public.[3] 

The two (2) key issues for determination by the Court were whether the information was disclosable, under ASX Listing Rule 3.1A and if so whether Nuix had contravened its continuous disclosure obligations under section 674(2) of the Corporations Act.  Secondly whether Nuix’s failure to disclose the 1HFY21 ACV and publication of financial forecasts breached the laws relating to misleading and deceptive conduct or directors’ duties.

Application of ASX listing rules

The continuous disclosure obligation for listed companies, Listing Rule 3.1applies:

“Once an entity is or becomes aware of any information concerning it that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the entity’s securities, the entity must immediately tell ASX that information”.[4]

Listing Rule 3.1A provides an exception to this rule if:

  • Disclosing the information would breach a law; or
  • The information concerns and incomplete proposal or negotiation; or
  • The information comprises matters of supposition, or is insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure; or
  • The information is generated for internal management purposes; or
  • The information is a trade secret; AND
  • The information is confidential; AND
  • A reasonable person would not expect the information to be disclosed.

Application in ASIC v Nuix

The Court dismissed ASIC’s claim of breach of continuous disclosure, as it was not persuaded that a reasonable person would have expected disclosure of the 1HFY21 ACV results.  Therefore, the exemption applied and Nuix could not be said to have contravened its continuous disclosure obligations.[5]

The Court also dismissed the misleading and deceptive conduct claims, finding that Nuix maintained reasonable grounds for its financial forecasts.  The directors’ duties contraventions were accordingly dismissed as these claims “fell away” after no primary contraventions were established.[6]

Key takeaways

Discussions surrounding section 674 of the Corporations Act and the ASX Listing Rules related to continuous disclosure, in the context of ASIC v Nuix, clarify their application.  It is important that directors of listed public companies, are aware of their continuous disclosure obligations including how to identify whether information is or is not required to be disclosed.

Links and further references

Legislation

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Cases

Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490

Further information

If you need advice on fulfilling your company’s obligations under the Corporations Act, contact us for a confidential and obligation‑free discussion.

Doyles Recommended TMT Lawyer 2024

[1] ASIC, Handling Corporate Information.

[2] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 674(2).

[3] Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 at [3]-[5].

[4] ASX Listing Rule 3.1, page 301.

[5] Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 Justice Goodman at 786 – 788.

[6] Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490Justice Goodman At paragraphs 979-995.


Related insights

  • What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change.  The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC.  This article will briefly explain the function of…

    Read more …

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code).  This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…

    Read more …

  • Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1]  If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027.  The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

Related cases

  • Reiche v Neometals Ltd [2026] FCAFC 53

    CORPORATIONS – appeal from judgment of single judge concerning whistleblower protections under pt 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corps Act”) – where primary judge dismissed application for compensation and other remedies under s 1317AE of the Corps Act – where respondent admitted to causing detriment to appellant by making his role redundant and terminating…

  • Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 54

    INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from a decision of this Court concerning the construction of clause 16.3 of the Opal Fibre Packaging National Enterprise Agreement 2022 – whether the alternative dispute resolution clause which referred to the “status quo” remaining precluded the respondent from changing the operation of its random drug and alcohol testing practices

  • Brisbane Club v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2026] FCA 521

    INCOME TAX — Capital Gains Tax — Cost base — Whether money paid should be included in the cost base of the relevant Building or Second Sublease— Where money paid pursuant to a particular clause of the Deed — Where parties to the Second Sublease were not the same parties to the Deed — Interpretation…


Posted

in

, ,
Send this to a friend