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 exactly is a section 293 direction?

    What exactly is a section 293 direction?

    There are several reasons why a shareholder may require financial information, primarily they are denied access to the ‘accounts’ so as to make informed decision about the company.  The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides various mechanisms for shareholders to obtain financial and accounting information about a company, to allow them to access full and…

    Read more …

  • Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    This article explores shareholder oppression, examining Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Martin v Australian Squash Club Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 452, to understand the cumulative effect of individual acts.

    Read more …

  • Electronic document execution by directors

    Electronic document execution by directors

    The Federal Government has issued a ruling allowing companies to sign documents electronically until 6 November 2020. Find out more about how this ruling affects your business.

    Read more …

  • Arbitration clauses in building disputes

    Arbitration clauses in building disputes

    The QCAT decision of 4D Electrical Qld v Greyburn Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 74 shows arbitration can be a more efficient alternative to Court/tribunal litigation. Courts uphold contractual obligations agreed to by parties, proving arbitration is a viable option.

    Read more …

  • What are sophisticated investors?

    What are sophisticated investors?

    This article provides an overview of the requirements for a person to be a sophisticated investor under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth). It covers the definition of ‘person’, the Assets Test and Income Test, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) guidance, and the complexities of self-managed super funds.

    Read more …

  • Insolvent trading – prison for former Kleenmaid director

    Insolvent trading – prison for former Kleenmaid director

    Former Kleenmaid director, Andrew Young, sentenced to nine years in prison for fraud, criminal insolvent trading and causing $330,000 to be withdrawn from company bank account. Learn more about Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)’s actions to ensure directors meet their obligations and the consequences of allowing companies to trade whilst insolvent.

    Read more …

  • e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions

    IP contracts subject to restrictive trade practice provisions

    Learn how the repeal of Section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) affects businesses licensing or assigning intellectual property (IP) rights and the penalties associated with a breach with this comprehensive guide.

    Read more …

  • Company funds must be used for company purposes

    Company funds must be used for company purposes

    This article examines the legal principles behind when it is permissible to use company funds, focusing on the case of Re D G Brims and Sons Pty Ltd (1995) 16 ASCR 559, which established that company funds must only be used for company purposes and not to pay for legal costs of proceedings for the…

    Read more …

Related cases

  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Open4Sale Global Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1038

    CORPORATIONS – failure by unlisted public company and two of its directors to comply with disclosure obligations when offering securities contrary to s 727(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) – defendants each committing 101 contraventions – failure to lodge disclosure document with Australian Securities Investments Commission in relation to the offers – distribution…

  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Falcon Capital Limited (No 2) [2025] FCA 1034

    CORPORATIONS – application by ASIC for travel restraint orders and freezing orders under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where orders previously obtained on an ex parte basis – where orders subsequently extended by consent – where the defendant sought to have orders set aside on the basis of non-disclosure of material…

  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v iSignthis Limited (Penalty) [2025] FCA 917

    CORPORATIONS – disqualification orders and pecuniary penalties sought against director and company – where serious contraventions of ss 180, 674(2A) and 1309(1) and (12) of the Corporations Act 2009 (Cth) by director – where serious contravention of s 674(2) of the Act by company – where contraventions involved misleading market and market operator – where…


Posted

in

, ,
Send this to a friend