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

  • Damages for misleading conduct by competitors under ACL

    Damages for misleading conduct by competitors under ACL

    Section 236 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) entitles any person, including corporations – to claim compensation for loss or damage suffered from misleading or deceptive conduct.  The High Court has developed numerous general principles for assessing loss or damage which we will discuss in this article.

    Read more …

  • Updates to the Franchising Code of Conduct

    Updates to the Franchising Code of Conduct

    The current Franchising Code of Conduct (Old Code) is scheduled to “sunset” (meaning it will automatically expire unless extended or replaced) on 1 April 2025, with the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes–Franchising) Regulations 2024 (Cth) (New Regulations) coming into effect on the same date.

    Read more …

  • New Anti-Money Laundering Bill introduced

    New Anti-Money Laundering Bill introduced

    On 11 September 2024 the (Bill) was introduced to the House of Representatives.[1]  The Bill will amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act) to include provisions regarding deterrence, detection and disruption of money laundering and terrorism financing.[2]  Most changes will take effect from 31 March 2026.

    Read more …

  • How to read a commercial contract

    How to read a commercial contract

    A commercial contract (Commercial Contract) is a legally binding agreement between two (2) or more parties that contains the terms and conditions for a mutual exchange of value, such as goods or services for financial compensation.  This article aims to assist the reader on how to understand the contents of such a document.

    Read more …

  • Are contract recitals legally binding?

    Are contract recitals legally binding?

    Recitals, also known as the “preamble” or “details” clauses (Recitals) are introductory statements at the start of a contract that provide context, background or reasons for the terms and conditions that follow.  They have been historically used by the Courts to aid in the interpretation of ambiguous terms and are capable of including essential provisions…

    Read more …

  • The illegal phoenixing regime

    The illegal phoenixing regime

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth) (Amending Act) came into force on 18 February 2020 and was designed to prevent illegal phoenixing activity.  The Amending Act introduced reforms such as creditor-defeating disposition provisions to combat phoenixing activity.  Additional provisions amending the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were aimed to encourage accountability by…

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a change of control clause?

    What exactly is a change of control clause?

    In commercial contracts, a change of control clause is one that allows one of the parties to an agreement to terminate or modify its terms if a third party acquires a controlling stake in the other.  A change of control clause grants a party certain rights, such a right to accelerate an obligation to pay…

    Read more …

  • Unfair contract terms – automatic renewal clauses explained

    Unfair contract terms – automatic renewal clauses explained

    9 November 2023 was a crucial date for Australian businesses because from that date significant penalties can now be imposed on businesses found to have unfair contract terms (UCT) in their contracts.  The Federal Government had introduced significant changes to laws relating to UCT on 10 November 2022.

    Read more …

  • Changes to unfair contract terms

    Changes to unfair contract terms

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Amending Act) received royal assent on 9 November 2022, introducing significant amendments to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).  These amendments target the Unfair Contract Terms (UCT) provisions of the ACL, strengthening the rights of consumers while imposing stricter requirements on businesses using Standard Form…

    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