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

  • Should you work in the industry before you buy?

    Should you work in the industry before you buy?

    Are you considering a business acquisition? Learn how working in the business can help verify takings and the importance of a tuition period in the Real Estate Institute of Queensland (REIQ) Business Sale Contract. Click through to find out more.

    Read more …

  • How to identify fraudulent workers’ comp claims

    How to identify fraudulent workers’ comp claims

    Learn how to identify and prevent Worker’s Compensation fraud with this article. Employees found guilty of fraud face criminal convictions, fines up to $55,000 and a max of five (5) years imprisonment.

    Read more …

  • Electronic service of legal documents

    Electronic service of legal documents

    The decision in Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 30 examined validity of service of documents via email and Dropbox. Find out judgement and “take-aways” to help navigate complex legal process of document service.

    Read more …

  • Shareholders’ agreements and inconsistency clauses explained

    Shareholders’ agreements and inconsistency clauses explained

    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 …

  • ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634

    ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634

    In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 634, Coles has been accused of misleading customers over their partially-baked bread. Learn more, including the obiter suggested by Allsop CJ, by clicking through to the article.

    Read more …

  • ACCC v A Whistle (1979) PL

    ACCC v A Whistle (1979) PL

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken action against a business for allegedly publishing false reviews online. Learn more about the case and what businesses can do to avoid breaching the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and ACCC guidelines.

    Read more …

  • Businesses obligations when trading online – CC Act 2010 (Cth)

    Businesses obligations when trading online – CC Act 2010 (Cth)

    This article provides an overview of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and its application to online sales, including provisions relating to misleading conduct, single price representation, unconscionable conduct, unfair contract terms and remedies for contraventions.

    Read more …

  • Payroll tax obligations for your business

    Payroll tax obligations for your business

    Discover the employer obligations and potential tax savings associated with payroll tax in Queensland. Learn about registering, exemptions, deductions, and rebates that businesses may be able to take advantage of, as well as the consequences of not paying payroll tax.

    Read more …

  • Do I need a financial assistance whitewash?

    Do I need a financial assistance whitewash?

    Financial assistance in Section 260A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) allows companies to support acquisition of shares/units. Obtain shareholder approval in a compliant manner with a whitewash or face civil penalties. Contact us for a free and confidential discussion.

    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