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 are Services Agreements?

    What are Services Agreements?

    A services agreement is an essential tool for any business relationship. Learn more about the common clauses, liability, personnel obligations, and other considerations to ensure an effective agreement.

    Read more …

  • Shareholders’ right to information

    Shareholders’ right to information

    When shareholders are restricted from accessing company information, it may be a sign of a dispute. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides mechanisms for minority shareholders to obtain relevant information, but they must prove they are acting in ‘good faith’ and ‘for a proper purpose’.

    Read more …

  • Is your liquidated damages clause a penalty?

    Is your liquidated damages clause a penalty?

    This article explores the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in contracts, examining tests, and precedent cases to determine when a clause is a “genuine pre-estimate of damages” and not a penalty.

    Read more …

  • Director loans – can they be recalled anytime?

    Director loans – can they be recalled anytime?

    This article explores the legal considerations of when loans between family members or directors of a company are due and payable on demand. Learn more about the relevant case law and express terms that may be implied by conduct.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a partly-paid share?

    What exactly is a partly-paid share?

    Investing in partly-paid shares can come with unique benefits, such as voting rights and profits. Learn more about the legal and financial implications of this type of investment and the payment process involved.

    Read more …

  • What are retention of title (ROT) clauses?

    What are retention of title (ROT) clauses?

    In commercial transactions involving the sale of goods, including intellectual property (IP), a seller should consider protecting themselves against the risk that a buyer may default on payment.  In Queensland, one such protection method is provided by section 22 of the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld) (SGA), which states that a seller may reserve…

    Read more …

  • Term Sheets & Share Subscription Agreements

    Term Sheets & Share Subscription Agreements

    This article outlines the key clauses and potential pitfalls of creating a Share Subscription Agreement. Learn what to include in the Term Sheet and how to avoid common mistakes.

    Read more …

  • Federal Court rules on unfair contract clauses

    Federal Court rules on unfair contract clauses

    This case serves as a reminder to businesses and consumers to review their contracts and ensure they are compliant with the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Find out more about the Federal Court ruling and what it means for businesses and consumers.

    Read more …

  • Value shifting in commercial transactions explained

    Value shifting in commercial transactions explained

    Value shifting is an important tax consideration in Australia. This article outlines the general regime and exemptions, as well as Australian Taxation Office (ATO) resources for guidance.

    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