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

  • ACCC consultation environmental and sustainability guidance

    ACCC consultation environmental and sustainability guidance

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission releases Draft Guidance to help businesses make environmental and sustainability claims without misleading consumers. Seeking input from stakeholders to ensure guidance is effective and up-to-date with consumer law.

    Read more …

  • Greenwashing on Facebook – ASIC fines Future Super

    Greenwashing on Facebook – ASIC fines Future Super

    Learn more about Greenwashing in Australia and the alleged incidents, with Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) responsible for regulating misconduct. ASIC issued an infringement notice to Future Super for making misleading Greenwashing claims on Facebook. Understand the legislative framework and how to avoid making false claims.

    Read more …

  • Australian legislation tackles loot boxes in video games

    Australian legislation tackles loot boxes in video games

    The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Loot Boxes) Bill 2022 (Bill)  has been tabled in the House of Representatives on the 28 November 2022.  The private member’s Bill acts in response to growing support for the regulation of features and elements within video games which appear to simulate gambling.

    Read more …

  • Consumer law updates business owners should know

    Consumer law updates business owners should know

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Act) amends various pieces of legislation to provide stronger competition and consumer protections.  In particular, the Act bolsters the penalties applicable for offences relating to unfair practices and unfair contract terms under as contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and…

    Read more …

  • Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?

    Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?

    Class action lawsuits commonly resolve in a settlement between the members of a class and the respondents to a claim.  However, there are strict requirements to proposed settlements, including that they are ‘fair and reasonable’, which will be subject to judicial oversight.

    Read more …

  • Resigning as director – when is it effective?

    Resigning as director – when is it effective?

    On 18 February 2021, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth) (Treasury Act) came into effect and introduced various measures to combat “phoenixing”.  One of the reasons for this legislation was to help combat illegal phoenix activity which involves the creation of a new company to continue the business of an existing…

    Read more …

  • DIN update – deadline looms for Australian company directors

    DIN update – deadline looms for Australian company directors

    As 30 November 2022 approaches, Australian company directors must apply for a Director Identification Number (DIN) to comply with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth). Learn how to obtain your DIN, the application process and what documents you must provide.

    Read more …

  • Can contractors owe fiduciary duties to principals?

    Can contractors owe fiduciary duties to principals?

    This article examines whether independent contractors owe fiduciary duties to their principal, as well as any additional statutory duties that may be imposed on independent contractors who are company directors.

    Read more …

  • Disputed debts in body corporate matters

    Disputed debts in body corporate matters

    This article examines the potential consequences of missing contribution levy payments in community titles schemes. It looks at specific cases and the risks associated with disputed body corporate debts, including the High Court decision of David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48.

    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