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

  • Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction

    This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.

    Read more …

  • Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands

    Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands

    This article examines a Court decision that could have a significant impact on creditors making statutory demands. Learn more about the case of Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1042, and the implications for creditors, as well as relevant legislation and case law.

    Read more …

  • Director identification numbers now a reality

    Director identification numbers now a reality

    The Federal Government has passed a law requiring all directors to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN). Learn more about the implications of this law, including the potential penalties for non-compliance.

    Read more …

  • Present entitlement in trusts – what it means

    Present entitlement in trusts – what it means

    Explore the High Court’s interpretation of “present entitlement” under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth). Learn when a person has a vested interest in trust assets and how the trustee’s discretion affects the beneficiary’s entitlement.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a franked dividend?

    What exactly is a franked dividend?

    Discover how dividend imputation works and how the amount of tax you owe on dividends can be affected by your marginal tax rate and the company tax rate. Learn about the different types of franked dividends, such as fully franked and partially franked, and how they can impact your finances.

    Read more …

  • Do I have an implied licence for software?

    Do I have an implied licence for software?

    This article examines the implications of a Federal Court case, which awarded over $1.1 million in damages for unlicensed software use. Learn more about the decision and key principles for software licencing that businesses should consider.

    Read more …

  • The Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) – explained

    The Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) – explained

    Australian businesses with annual consolidated revenue of AUD$100 million or more must now file a Modern Slavery Statement to the government’s online register, addressing modern slavery risks and due diligence/remediation processes. Lower revenue entities can also file voluntarily.

    Read more …

  • What are exclusive supply contracts?

    What are exclusive supply contracts?

    The Court must consider whether the applicant has no other effective remedy, and if the information is sought for criminal proceedings, that there is a reasonable potential it will lead to conviction.

    Read more …

  • Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs

    Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs

    This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.

    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