If you're a Competent Person under the JORC Code, you know the weight of that title. Five years of relevant experience. Membership of a recognised professional body with enforceable disciplinary processes. Your name on the public report. Your consent in writing. When you sign off on a Mineral Resource or Ore Reserve estimate, you're putting your professional standing behind it. The industry, and directors, treats that sign-off with reverence.
But ASIC might not see it the same way.
In its latest Corporate Finance Update, ASIC flagged an increase in disclosure documents describing entities as holding 'JORC compliant Mineral Resources'.[1] ASIC's position is clear: the phrase is potentially misleading, and the reason matters for Competent Persons and the directors who rely on their statements.
The JORC Code undoubtedly contains standards for Competent Persons. Table 1 is a rigorous checklist of reporting criteria. The three governing principles of Transparency, Materiality, and Competence impose real obligations. The Code's materiality test, which requires reports to contain all information that investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require to make a reasoned and balanced judgement, closely mirrors the disclosure tests found in the Corporations Act.[2] The Code does not operate in a vacuum.
But this is the critical distinction: the Code itself states that it is 'a Code for Public Reporting not a Code that regulates the manner in which a Competent Person estimates Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves.'[3] In other words, JORC tells you how to report an estimate, not how to do one.
There is also no independent assurance mechanism within the JORC framework. The Competent Person who prepared or supervised the estimate is the same person who consents to how it is presented in the public report. Directors are generally responsible for publishing JORC Code disclosures but rely entirely on the Competent Person's self-assessment to assert that the Code has been followed. There is no external audit, no independent review requirement, and no third-party verification.
This is the core of ASIC's concern. When a company tells the market it holds 'JORC-compliant' resources, a reasonable reader could infer that the underlying estimate was prepared in compliance with a verified standard. But that is not what JORC can deliver. What JORC provides is a framework for how estimates are presented in public reports. The Code cannot verify or assure that the estimation process itself met any particular standard, because it does not regulate that process.
As the Code itself acknowledges, 'JORC compliant' therefore refers to the manner of reporting not to the estimates.[4] The word 'compliant' carries an implication of rigour in how the estimate was made, when all it can legitimately speak to is how that estimate was reported. For a regulator that values independence, external assurance, and verifiable compliance, that gap is significant.
A Contradiction in the Code
There is a further anomaly in the current Code that is worth noting. The 2012 edition discourages the use of 'JORC compliant' on the basis that it is potentially misleading. But in the same paragraph, it provides how the term should be interpreted if it is used: 'Reported in accordance with the JORC Code and estimated (or based on Documentation prepared) by a Competent Person as defined by the JORC Code.'[5]
The Code is, in effect, discouraging a term while simultaneously giving it a safe harbour. That internal contradiction has persisted since 2012. For companies and their directors, it may have provided a degree of comfort: the Code itself tells you how to interpret the phrase. But ASIC's statement suggests that comfort may be misplaced, and that the regulator may not accept the Code's own safe harbour as sufficient to avoid misleading disclosure.
Has the Draft Code Fixed This?
The publicly available exposure draft of the revised JORC Code, released in August 2024, suggests not. In fact, the contradiction may have deepened. Clause 2.6 of the draft states that the use of 'JORC-compliant' in a public report is 'not permitted' unless all reporting requirements are met. But the very next clause, 2.7, retains the same deemed interpretation from 2012.[6]
The draft has gone from discouraging the term to endorsing it provided conditions are met, while still providing the interpretive safe harbour. The tension remains: JORC is ok with the term, but only if it is understood the way the Code says it should be understood. That is not a test ASIC applies.
There is also a notable omission. The 2012 edition's foundational qualifier, that the Code is a reporting code and not a code that regulates the manner of estimation, does not appear in the exposure draft.[7] Whether this was a deliberate removal or an oversight remains to be seen, but its absence could shift how 'JORC-compliant' is understood. Without that qualifier, the boundary between what JORC regulates and what it does not becomes less clear.
Notably, the summary of public feedback on the draft Code, published by JORC in September 2025, does not appear to address this specific issue.[8] Over 8,200 comments were received across the draft, but the anomalous treatment of 'JORC-compliant' does not feature in the published summary of feedback or changes. That may change as the draft undergoes its current legal review and further engagement with ASIC and ASX.
Why Now?
The JORC Code is currently undergoing its first major revision since 2012, a process that has taken more than five years and is now in its final stages.[9] As of late 2025, JORC confirmed it is finalising the draft Code with ASX and ASIC in Q1 2026. We can assume ASIC is currently taking a close look at proposed changes to the Code, their impact on market integrity and compliance with the Corporations Act.
ASIC has had little to say to or about the minerals reporting market during this lengthy review period. That it has chosen this moment, while the draft is in its final stages of regulator review, to remind the market that 'JORC-compliant' is potentially misleading, is telling. It may signal that ASIC is taking the opportunity presented by the Code review to address prior cracks, including the anomalous drafting that has allowed the term to persist.
It is worth remembering where ASIC's regulatory focus sits. ASIC does not regulate Competent Persons or the JORC Code. Its concern is with the companies that use JORC estimates in their market disclosures, and the directors responsible for those disclosures. If the new edition of the Code resolves the contradiction and removes or restricts the term 'JORC-compliant', ASIC would then have a clearer basis to hold companies to account through its own guidance and existing powers under the Corporations Act.
Whether this is the start of closer regulatory scrutiny of how JORC estimates are characterised in disclosure documents, or whether ASX will impose tighter constraints as the new Code is incorporated into listing rules, remains to be seen. But the signal is clear enough to warrant attention.
For Competent Persons and the directors who rely on their statements, the practical takeaway is straightforward: JORC estimates form part of your legal disclosure obligations. The language used to describe and reference those estimates carries legal risk, and describing resources as 'JORC-compliant' is no different. The fact that an estimate has been prepared by a Competent Person does not relieve a company of its obligation to ensure its disclosure is not misleading. A deemed interpretation in an industry code does not override the regulator's test for misleading disclosure.[10]
RGC Advisory is a specialist advisory and legal firm focused on regulation, governance and compliance. Our team includes former regulators and specialists in mineral asset disclosure who work at the intersection of technical reporting and legal compliance. Get in touch to discuss how we can help you navigate your JORC disclosure obligations.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
References
- ASIC, Corporate Finance Update — Issue 27, February 2026.
- See, for example, the disclosure tests in Chapter 6D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which require disclosure documents to contain all information that investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require to make an informed assessment.
- JORC Code, 2012 Edition, Clause 6.
- JORC Code, 2012 Edition, Clause 6.
- JORC Code, 2012 Edition, Clause 6.
- JORC, Draft JORC Code, Exposure Draft, 1 August 2024, Clauses 2.6 and 2.7.
- JORC Code, 2012 Edition, Clause 6.
- JORC, Draft JORC Code: Survey Feedback & Summary of Changes 2024–2025, 10 September 2025.
- JORC, Code Update — December 2025.
- ASIC, Information Sheet 214: Mining and resources — Forward-looking statements (INFO 214).