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

  • The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    Creditors who have been paid by a customer on credit may find themselves facing an Unfair Preference claim letter from a liquidator. Learn more about the defences available to creditors and how to protect yourself from repaying more than your fair share.

    Read more …

  • Unfair preferences & the set-off defence

    Unfair preferences & the set-off defence

    Under section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) an unfair preference is defined as a transaction, such as payment of an outstanding debt, between a company and an unsecured creditor which results in that unsecured creditor receiving more than it would have received if it had to prove in the winding up of the…

    Read more …

  • Need a reseller agreement?

    Need a reseller agreement?

    This article provides an overview of the considerations when entering into a Joint Venture, including inputs, outputs, legal and tax implications of different Joint Venture vehicles. Get the facts you need to make an informed decision.

    Read more …

  • Unfair preferences – the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect

    Unfair preferences – the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect

    Explore the Doctrine of Ultimate Effect, running account defence and more in this article by Dundas Lawyers. Learn how these concepts can provide a defence to an unfair preference claim under Section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

    Read more …

  • Bullying in the workplace by a body corporate

    Bullying in the workplace by a body corporate

    This investigation reveals the legal implications of workplace bullying in a body corporate. Find out what the Obligations of Reasonableness and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) mean for workers and how to apply for an order to stop the bullying.

    Read more …

  • Director’s duties – the case of MG Corrosion Consultants PL v Gilmour

    Director’s duties – the case of MG Corrosion Consultants PL v Gilmour

    The case of MG Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd v Gilmour [2014] FCA 990 serves as a reminder of the need for Directors to uphold their obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Uncover the Courts findings and the implications for Directors.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a bare trust?

    What exactly is a bare trust?

    This article explores the taxation implications of setting up a Bare Trust, from income tax to capital gains tax and beyond. Learn more about the duties of a Trustee and the considerations to keep in mind when creating a Bare Trust.

    Read more …

  • Director Identification Numbers – more red tape?

    Director Identification Numbers – more red tape?

    Treasury Laws Amendment Bill proposes a Director Identification Number (DIN) regime to create transparency, detect illegal phoenix activity, and provide streamlined system for liquidators/administrators. Consultation closes 26 Oct 2018.

    Read more …

  • Notice requirements under commercial leases

    Notice requirements under commercial leases

    Failing to comply with commercial lease option requirements can lead to costly disputes. Learn how to protect your business asset and avoid pitfalls when exercising an option in this article.

    Read more …

Related cases

  • Deakin University v Macreadie [2026] FCA 481

    CONSUMER LAW – application for permanent injunctions pursuant to s 232 of the Australian Consumer Law restraining the respondents from representing that the second respondent is the owner of the relevant intellectual property and trade marks of the Blue Carbon Lab – application for mandatory injunction requiring the second respondent to change its name –…

  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited [2026] FCA 405

    CORPORATIONS – application for declaration of contravention of s 674A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – agreed penalty sought – where defendant failed to notify ASX of changes to revenue forecast which could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the value of its shares – appropriateness of agreed penalty considered –…

  • Yang v Wong [2026] FCAFC 39

    CORPORATIONS – unreasonable director-related transaction – whether transactions taken as a whole constitute a payment to a close associate of a director under s 588FDA(1)(b)(ii) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – payment by company A to company B – subsequent repayment of loan from company B to respondent – where respondent is a relative…


Posted

in

, ,
Send this to a friend