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

  • OAIC publishes new guidance for under-16s social media ban

    OAIC publishes new guidance for under-16s social media ban

    On 10 October 2025, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), led by Privacy Commissioner, Ms Carly Kind, released a twenty-nine (29) page Privacy Guidance on Part 4A (Social Media Minimum Age) of the Online Safety Act 2021 (New Guidance).  This New Guidance details the privacy obligations for Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms (Restricted Platforms)…

    Read more …

  • Aust Clinical Labs fined $5.8mil for failing to report data breach

    Aust Clinical Labs fined $5.8mil for failing to report data breach

    On 8 October 2025, the Federal Court published the judgement of Justice Halley in the case of Australian Information Commissioner v Australian Clinical Labs Limited (No 2) [2025] FCA 1224 (AIC v ACL).  Australian Clinical Labs Limited (ACL) was ordered to pay $5.8 million in civil penalties in relation to a 2022 data breach.  This…

    Read more …

  • Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Australian accounting standards (Accounting Standards) are often considered solely the domain of auditors and accountants.  However, they are a crucial aspect of corporate law and governance in Australia.  For directors, officers, and their professional advisers, the key issue is not the technical details of the Accounting Standards, but rather their legal enforceability.  A failure to…

    Read more …

  • When a thumbs up emoji means accepting an offer

    When a thumbs up emoji means accepting an offer

    In a time where communication increasingly takes place through text messages and social media platforms, the legal recognition of non-traditional expressions, such as emojis, presents a potential evolution of the doctrine of acceptance in contract law.  The 2023 Canadian decision by the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench (Court) in South West Terminal Ltd v Achter…

    Read more …

  • What is an indemnity clause?

    What is an indemnity clause?

    The word indemnity, in its’ legal context, is defined as “legal protection against liabilities arising from one’s actions.”  An indemnity clause therefore, represents the contractual embodiment of this definition, serving as a formal mechanism which protects one party from the from the actions or inactions of another.  In effect, it enables parties to allocate risk…

    Read more …

  • What is the US Take It Down Act?

    What is the US Take It Down Act?

    The Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act (Take It Down Act ) is a United States (US) federal law enacted on 19 May 2025. The Take It Down Act amends 47 U.S. Code § 223 (Code) of the Communications Act 1934 (US) (Communications Act) by establishing new…

    Read more …

  • Introduction to the Trusts Bill 2025 (Qld)

    Introduction to the Trusts Bill 2025 (Qld)

    On 1 May 2025, the Trusts Bill 2025 (Qld) (Bill) passed its final reading before the Queensland Parliament and, at the date of this article, awaits royal assent.  When in force, the Bill will completely replace the current Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) (Act) to reflect the recommendations of the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s 2013 review of the…

    Read more …

  • What are unrealised capital gains?

    What are unrealised capital gains?

    An unrealised capital gain refers to an increase in the value of an asset that has not yet been sold or disposed of.  In Australia, capital gains are taxed on assets which have increased in value when they are sold and the gain is realised, however the proposed Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions)…

    Read more …

  • Labor to abolish non-compete clauses from 2027

    Labor to abolish non-compete clauses from 2027

    On 25 March 2025, the Albanese Labor government announced in its 2025-26 Budget (Budget), that it intended to abolish non-compete clauses in employment contracts for approximately three (3) million workers from 2027.

    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