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

  • Corporate governance as a strategic advantage

    Corporate governance as a strategic advantage

    Good corporate governance is essential for any successful business. Learn how Directors and Senior Management can make it a priority, and how it can provide value and security to the business in today’s competitive global economy.

    Read more …

  • Buy/sell agreements for business succession planning

    Buy/sell agreements for business succession planning

    Buy/Sell Agreements, also referred to as Put and Call Option agreements, provide certainty for a business on the death or disablement of an equity participant. This article explores the various ownership and taxation implications, including insurance trusts, cross ownership, individual ownership, SMSF ownership, group insurance policies, and transfer via will.

    Read more …

  • Is your trust deed Bamford compliant?

    Is your trust deed Bamford compliant?

    Trust deeds created more than two years ago may not comply with the Bamford ruling, resulting in consequences for trustees and beneficiaries. Dundas Lawyers can help review trust deeds and ensure they meet legal requirements.

    Read more …

  • Appointing an alternate director explained

    Appointing an alternate director explained

    Appointing an Alternate Director? Understand the powers and responsibilities with our obligation free and confidential discussion. Learn more now.

    Read more …

  • Failure to review contracts can cost millions…

    Failure to review contracts can cost millions…

    The case of The State of NSW v UXC Limited [2011] NSWCS 530 serves as a reminder of the need for organisations to pay close attention to contract details. An oversight can result in costly damages.

    Read more …

  • Is your business ready for investors?

    Is your business ready for investors?

    Want to attract investors? This article reveals the essential steps to make your business “investor ready.” From crafting a solid business plan to securing legal certainty, learn how to prepare your business for successful investment and stand out to potential backers.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is securities hawking?

    What exactly is securities hawking?

    This article examines Section 736 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which prohibits security hawking. It outlines exemptions, consequences, definitions and further references.

    Read more …

  • Raising capital without disclosure

    Raising capital without disclosure

    This article explains the rules under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for raising capital in Australia without a formal disclosure document, such as a prospectus. It covers exceptions like the “20/12 rule” for small-scale offerings and other exemptions for specific investors. The article also highlights key provisions, restrictions on advertising, and ASIC’s role in regulating…

    Read more …

  • Directors and associates may be personally liable for SGC and PAYG

    Directors and associates may be personally liable for SGC and PAYG

    The Federal Government introduced legislation increasing director liability for non-compliance with Pay as you go (PAYG) and Super guarantee charge (SGC). The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) expanded recovery powers. Click through to learn more and ensure compliance.

    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