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

  • Can a third party be held accountable for breaching director duties?

    Can a third party be held accountable for breaching director duties?

    This article examines how the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) holds third parties “knowingly involved” in director misconduct accountable. Learn more about the tests, cases, and damages that can result from company business gone wrong.

    Read more …

  • Preventing ex-employees from using your client list

    Preventing ex-employees from using your client list

    This article examines a Federal Court of Australia decision to grant an interlocutory injunction against a former employee. Learn how the Court reached its decision, what businesses can take away from the case, and find out how to protect your business from similar breaches.

    Read more …

  • Holding company responsibility for subsidiary debts

    Holding company responsibility for subsidiary debts

    Uncover the factors that affect a holding company’s liability for its subsidiary’s debts. Learn when a holding company can be liable and what defences are available to protect it.

    Read more …

  • ASIC v Macdonald – have the lessons really been forgotten?

    ASIC v Macdonald – have the lessons really been forgotten?

    The case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 11) [2009] NSWSC 287 highlights the importance of properly documenting Directors’ meetings to ensure they are legally compliant. This article examines the facts of the case, the basis of The Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s argument, and the principles of preparing minutes of Directors’…

    Read more …

  • The Crowd-sourced Funding Bill 2016 – overview

    The Crowd-sourced Funding Bill 2016 – overview

    Revised from the 2015 Bill, the 2016 Bill provides a regulatory framework for Crowd Sourced Funding (CSF) with eligibility requirements, obligations for Intermediaries facilitating the CSF Offers, and restrictions on advertising to protect retail investors.

    Read more …

  • Shadow directors and de facto directors explained

    Shadow directors and de facto directors explained

    This article examines the legal reality of de facto directors and shadow directors, which go beyond those validly appointed. It also considers whether advisory board members can be classed as such, and the implications of this status, with reference to relevant case law.

    Read more …

  • Refund obligations for Australian businesses

    Refund obligations for Australian businesses

    In Australia, the main piece of legislation governing the supply of goods and services is the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), which incorporates the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in Schedule 2.  These obligations apply in addition to the terms and conditions by which a business trades.  The CCA regulates the interaction between businesses…

    Read more …

  • Are legal expenses tax deductible for new start-ups?

    Are legal expenses tax deductible for new start-ups?

    From 1 July 2015, a newly incorporated company, trust or partnership can immediately deduct a range of professional expenses associated with starting a new business, such as professional, legal and accounting advice.  This change was introduced by the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 3) Act 2015 (Cth) which amended the Income Tax Assessment…

    Read more …

  • ACCC guide for platform operators updated

    ACCC guide for platform operators updated

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released a Guide to help Platform Operators in the Sharing Economy understand their legal obligations. Learn more about the four key principles, terms and conditions, policies and pricing obligations.

    Read more …

Related cases

  • Sillery Pty Ltd v CHA SMG Australia Holding Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 396

    EQUITY – equitable and legal assignment of shares – non-remittance of funds held in trust account of solicitor to the purchaser and series of transactions affecting equitable assignment and legal assignment of shares PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory relief sought to access certain documents on an urgent basis – interlocutory relief no longer pressed –…

  • Mastercard Asia/Pacific (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2026] FCAFC 37

    LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE – whether implied waiver of privilege is limited to the making of express or implied assertions about the content of confidential communications – whether the primary judge correctly found waiver in the conduct of serving affidavits that contained evidence to the effect that the appellants did not hold anti-competitive purposes in devising…

  • Chief Executive Officer of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency v Chegg, Inc. [2026] FCA 330

    CONSUMER LAW – where respondent admitted contraventions of s 114A(3) of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) – where pecuniary penalty sought by applicant not opposed by respondent – construction of s 114A(3) of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) and associated definitions – consideration of principles…


Posted

in

, ,
Send this to a friend