EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia Full Court · [2026] FCAFC 78

Crowley v Worley disclosure appeal

A Full Federal Court investor class-action appeal about Worley's earnings guidance, continuous disclosure, misleading conduct, causation...

Federal Court of Australia Full Court28 May 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Forecasts and investor updates need a reasonable basis across the business, not just board-level confidence.
  • A Full Federal Court investor class-action appeal about Worley's earnings guidance, continuous disclosure, misleading conduct, causation and share-price inflation.

Use this to check

  • Market guidance should have a reasonable basis when made and when repeated.
  • Internal budget adjustments, stretch assumptions and warning emails can become central evidence.
  • Board approval does not erase knowledge held by senior managers involved in the budget process.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Larry Crowley brought a representative proceeding for investors who bought shares in Worley Limited during the period 14 August 2013 to 19 November 2013.
    • Worley was a publicly listed services company in the resources, energy and infrastructure sectors.
    • The case concerned earnings guidance given to the ASX in August 2013 and repeated in October 2013, saying Worley expected increased earnings in FY2014 from the prior year's $322 million NPAT.
    • That guidance was based on an FY14 budget forecasting about $352 million NPAT.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Full Court had to decide whether the remitter judge erred in rejecting market-based causation and loss after finding misleading or deceptive conduct and continuous disclosure contraventions, and whether Worley's cross-appeal on liability should succeed.
    • The issues included the reasonable basis for FY2014 earnings guidance, attribution of knowledge held by senior employees, counterfactual disclosure, share-price inflation and costs.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Full Court allowed the appeal, varied the remitter judge's answers on causation and loss, dismissed Worley's cross-appeal, set aside the earlier costs orders and ordered Worley to pay Mr Crowley's costs of the initial and remitted trials.
    • The Court found share price inflation of 5.92% for the relevant purchase and awarded $593 plus interest to Mr Crowley on that basis.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Forecasts and investor updates need a reasonable basis across the business, not just board-level confidence.
  • Listed companies and growth companies should preserve the assumptions, internal warnings and management adjustments behind guidance before making market-facing statements.

Useful next steps

  • Market guidance should have a reasonable basis when made and when repeated.
  • Internal budget adjustments, stretch assumptions and warning emails can become central evidence.
  • Board approval does not erase knowledge held by senior managers involved in the budget process.
  • Shareholder loss can be assessed through share-price inflation even where quantification is difficult.
  • Investor updates should separate present facts, assumptions, targets and uncertainty.

Practical read

This is a listed-company disclosure case, but the lesson matters for any business that gives investors confident numbers. Worley told the market it expected increased FY2014 earnings. Internally, the budget had been adjusted up from earlier drafts, and the later evidence included management notes, budget assumptions, market conditions and internal warnings that the targets were stretched.

The Full Court allowed Mr Crowley's appeal and dismissed Worley's cross-appeal. It held that the remitter judge had been wrong on the loss question. Once contraventions had been established, the Court considered that the analysis should start with the fact that Worley had published future-performance information that was misleading or deceptive and lacked a reasonable basis.

The Court found some loss had been proved and quantified share price inflation for Mr Crowley's purchase at negative 5.92%, producing an amount of $593 plus interest.

For founders, boards and finance teams, the practical point is evidence. Guidance is not protected just because directors believed it or because the board signed off. The assumptions underneath the number matter. If senior managers know the budget is stretched, if market conditions have changed, if forecasts depend on large management adjustments, or if the business later cannot explain the bridge from internal numbers to public statements, the disclosure risk rises sharply.

Growth companies should build this discipline before they are public.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Before giving investor guidance, keep a file showing the assumptions, risks and supporting numbers.
  • Escalate internal warnings that budgets are stretched before repeating public guidance.
  • Record who knew what in the finance, operations and board process.
  • Update or qualify guidance if later data undermines the original basis.
  • For private raises, use the same discipline around forecasts, runway and milestone statements.

Key takeaways

  • Market guidance should have a reasonable basis when made and when repeated.
  • Internal budget adjustments, stretch assumptions and warning emails can become central evidence.
  • Board approval does not erase knowledge held by senior managers involved in the budget process.
  • Shareholder loss can be assessed through share-price inflation even where quantification is difficult.
  • Investor updates should separate present facts, assumptions, targets and uncertainty.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help