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

  • Agency agreements – what are they and how are they used?

    Agency agreements – what are they and how are they used?

    Understand the legal differences between an Agency and Reseller Relationship and the potential consequences of negligence and non-compliance. Get an overview of the responsibilities of both the Agent and Principal, and learn how an agency agreement differs from a resellers agreement. Click through to get the full picture.

    Read more …

  • ACCC guide on country of origin labelling requirements

    ACCC guide on country of origin labelling requirements

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released guidelines for businesses to comply with country of origin legislation and avoid serious penalties. Learn more about the safe harbour defence available and the criteria businesses must meet to stay compliant.

    Read more …

  • Prohibition on the acquisition of relevant interests

    Prohibition on the acquisition of relevant interests

    Section 606 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) prohibits acquiring a relevant interest in voting shares, with exceptions. This article explains the definitions and thresholds that apply, provides a full list of exceptions, relevant case studies, and further resources for legal advice.

    Read more …

  • Transfer Duty in business acquisitions

    Transfer Duty in business acquisitions

    This article explores the application of transfer duty in business acquisitions, including what it is, what is a dutiable transaction, dutiable property, dutiable value, unencumbered value, when it is determined, and who must pay.

    Read more …

  • The GST going concern exemption explained

    The GST going concern exemption explained

    When selling a business in Australia, it’s important to know the going concern exemption to goods and services tax (GST). Learn more about the applicable threshold requirements and legislative references.

    Read more …

  • Drag along rights can be enforced in Court

    Drag along rights can be enforced in Court

    This article examines a 2013 case, William McCausland v Surfing Hardware International Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 902, which serves as a reminder of the enforceability of drag along clauses in shareholders agreements and the complexity of factors that can affect the legal position of the parties involved.

    Read more …

  • Redeemable preference shares – what to know

    Redeemable preference shares – what to know

    This article discusses the rights, obligations and taxation implications of Redeemable Preference Shares (REDP), hybrid securities with both debt and equity characteristics as defined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Case law examples and the process for issuing REDP according to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are also discussed.

    Read more …

  • Restraint of trade & commercial contracts – a systemic approach

    Restraint of trade & commercial contracts – a systemic approach

    This article provides an invaluable overview of restraint of trade clauses (ROTs). It examines the enforceability of ROTs, their test of reasonableness, and the role of the Court in determining their reasonableness, providing a valuable guide for those wishing to draft and enforce them.

    Read more …

  • Debt collection – done right

    Debt collection – done right

    Uncovering debt and how to recover it effectively can be challenging. Dundas Lawyers can advise on strengths and weaknesses of a debt claim and options to advance it.

    Read more …

Related cases

  • Reiche v Neometals Ltd [2026] FCAFC 53

    CORPORATIONS – appeal from judgment of single judge concerning whistleblower protections under pt 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corps Act”) – where primary judge dismissed application for compensation and other remedies under s 1317AE of the Corps Act – where respondent admitted to causing detriment to appellant by making his role redundant and terminating…

  • Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 54

    INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from a decision of this Court concerning the construction of clause 16.3 of the Opal Fibre Packaging National Enterprise Agreement 2022 – whether the alternative dispute resolution clause which referred to the “status quo” remaining precluded the respondent from changing the operation of its random drug and alcohol testing practices

  • Brisbane Club v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2026] FCA 521

    INCOME TAX — Capital Gains Tax — Cost base — Whether money paid should be included in the cost base of the relevant Building or Second Sublease— Where money paid pursuant to a particular clause of the Deed — Where parties to the Second Sublease were not the same parties to the Deed — Interpretation…


Posted

in

, ,
Send this to a friend