Summary by King&Wood Mallesons (6 September 2012), Judges In February 2014, Gordon J (at that time a judge of the Federal Court) held that the credit card late payme… M48/2012. 5 (1988) 164 CLR 387. Contract law — Liquidated damages — Law of penalties — History of the law of penalties — Law of penalties in Australia and United Kingdom — Relationship between equity and the common law — Requirement for breach — Relationship between banker and customer — Applicants customers of respondent ("ANZ") — ANZ charged customers a variety of fees for overdrawn facilities, overdrawn accounts, dishonouring instructions and over-limit credit card accounts ("Exception Fees") — Whether Exception Fees were capable of characterisation as penalties — Whether the "jurisdiction" in respect of penalties is available only at common law or remains alive in equity — Scope of jurisdiction in equity — Whether relief against penalties requires a breach of contract — Whether jurisdiction to relieve against penalties capable of application in any transaction where, viewed as a matter of substance, an obligation is imposed on one party to pay a sum of money or transfer property to the other in order to secure the performance or enjoyment of a principal object of that transaction — Consideration of core banking law principles pertaining to banker customer relationship — Whether relief against penalties available against Exception Fees. Date cause removed: 11 May 2012 The applicants are customers of the respondent bank (“ANZ”), who have been charged a variety of fees for overdrafts, overdrawn accounts, dishonour fees and fees” class action proceedings (Paciocco and Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (Paciocco) and Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd) (Review). Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973) 133 CLR 288 (High Court) Illegality - restraint of trade Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30 Remedies - Penalty clauses . Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd provides an opportunity for the High Court of Australia to clarify the application of the test in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd to discern whether a credit card account fee is, in fact, a penalty. 24 (2008) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330. B, the appellant, was a bank. Between September 2008 and July 2013, ANZ charged the appellants various 'Exception Fees', specifically late payment fees, overlimit fees, honour and dishonor fees and non-payment fees. In that sense, the collateral or accessory stipulation is described as being in the nature of a security for and in terrorem of the satisfaction of the primary stipulation. Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 4 December 2013), Andrews v ANZ - the High Court and the doctrine of Penalties Federal Court of Australia The case was remitted back to Gordon J. 2 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Cavendish'). Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386. As a result, it upheld the appeal in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited HCA 30, holding that breach of contract is not necessary before the penalty doctrine can be invoked. In late 2012, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. A key finding of the Court was that the doctrine of penalties is not exclusively enlivened by breach of contract: other contractual stipulations may trigger it. These are the financial statements for Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (the Company or ANZ) for the year ended 30 September 2019. French CJ Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 5 February 2014), Bank fees back in court again 4 (1982) 149 CLR 337. 23 (2008) 257 ALR 292. Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2012] HCA 30 247 CLR 205; 86 ALJR 1002; 290 ALR 595 6 Sep 2012 Case Number: M48/2012 Learn about easy and secure ways to manage your money. In 2013, following the High Court’s restatement of the law of penalties in Andrews v ANZ, a fresh class action was commenced against ANZ by some of its customers in respect of exception fees charged by the bank, including credit card late payment fees, overdraw honour fees, dishonour fees, non-payment fees and overlimit fees. Issues Penalty clauses. The High Court case of Andrews v ANZ Banking Group Ltd1 may have profound impact on the commercial world, since many liquidated damages clauses in commercial contracts or product disclosure statements drafted in accordance with case authorities overturned in Andrews v ANZ could potentially become unenforceable as penalty clauses. Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 224 CLR 656 at [32], see also Justice Middleton's observations in Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] FCAFC 50 at [400]. The Company is incorporated and domiciled in Australia. ANZ offers a range of personal banking and business financial solutions. Judges French CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J . Coralling the penalties horse: Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd Citator LawCite Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 8 August 2016), Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd The ANZ Exception Fees class action1 was commenced by Mr Paciocco and his company, Speedy Development Group Pty Ltd (the appellants in the High Court appeal). The unanimous judgement referred to the term when describing the doctrine of penalties and its operation in the case of unfair fees levied by large banks against their customers. Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28 27 Jul 2016 Case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015. Kiefel J GROUP MEMBER REGISTRATION FORM ANZ BANK FEES CLASS ACTION Andrews & v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd MD of 2010 and VID 196 of2013) To: ANZ Bank Fees Class Action Team Maurice Blackburn PO Box 523 Melbourne Vic 3001 (Email: ANZClassAction@mauriceblackburn.com-au) (Tel: 1800 411 669) The rule against penalties: The position after Andrews v ANZ Until the High Court’s decision in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) HCA 30 (Andrews v ANZ) conventional wisdom had been that the rule against penalties applied only where there had been a breach of contract. The first of those cases to reach the High Court was Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205, in which the High Court decided that equitable relief against penalties had not been subsumed into the common law, and that the rule against penalties was not limited to cases arising out of a breach of contract. The recent decision by the High Court in Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28 marked the end of a long representative action involving bank fees for late credit card bill payments. Link to decision AustLII. AustLII, Last updated: 2 September 2018 | Copyright and disclaimer, Coralling the penalties horse: Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, News: Most bank fees not illegal penalties, Andrews v ANZ - the High Court and the doctrine of Penalties. The key … The first door had been left ajar in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd HCA 30, potentially allowing the penalties doctrine to invalidate (at least partially) a wider range of clauses. In terrorem has also been referred to by the High Court of Australia in the 2012 case of Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. If compensation can be made to the second party for the prejudice suffered by failure of the primary stipulation, the collateral stipulation and the penalty are enforced only to the extent of that compensation. P was a company that worked as an investment vehicle, operated … Services include internet banking, bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, personal loans, travel and international, investment and insurance. This question was then removed to the High Court for consideration, and in late December 2012 the High Court delivered a decision in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd5 (Andrews HC) that overturned recent case law on penalties that dictated that breach was an essential element in determining whether a fee is a penalty. Case M48/2012 . By way of indication of the importance of the case, the High Court of Australia on 11 May 2012 took the rarely-performed step The Review was primarily in the context of the class action. 08/06/2012 Written submissions (Applicants), 29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondent), 14/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra). Her original decision on the matter, Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group [2011] FCA 1376, was appealed to to the High Court in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2012] HCA 30. This approach is no longer certain following today’s High Court decision in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) HCA 30. The recent decision of the Australia High Court in Andrews v.Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.is important for the building industry. 4 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205 5 Robert McDougall, ‘Penalties in Commercial Contracts since Andrews v ANZ’, paper delivered at the Annual One Day CLE Seminar: Business Law, Saturday 12 March 2016 6 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 211 FCR 53, [5] Andrews v Parker (1973) Qd R 93 Illegality - prejudicial to status of marriage Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Justice Gordon, Link to decision For purposes of this proceeding, the relevant issue related to whether or not certain provisions in contracts between the ANZ and customers were void or unenforceable as penalties. Catchwords. 9 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2014) 309 ALR 249. 10 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2015) 321 ALR 584. After being remitted to the Federal Court it was renamed Paciocco v ANZ (but still represented the same action). The Court answered that question in the affirmative. 17 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 288 ALR 611. The case is a representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger group of ANZ Bank customers. Facts. Gummow J The first party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation. This post will focus on the penalties doctrine rather than on the statutory claims of … 19 (2011) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 [205]-[208]. Grocon Constructors (Qld) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No. Appeal from Federal Court of Australia Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2011] FCA 1376 Judge Justice Gordon. The relevant provisions related to over limit and late payment fees. The High Court’s recent decision in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30 establishes the broad reach of the common law rule and the equitable jurisdiction concerning relief against penalties and makes clear that these rules cannot be avoided through drafting alone. 18 Federal Court Act, s 24(1A). The appellants held credit card, savings and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ). High Court of Australia. 20 At [79]. See further resources for some great overviews of the case - including what followed in Paciocco. Case Information. Contract law – Banking and finance – Misrepresentation – Investment. Home Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. Building and Construction Law Journal update: June … [10] In general terms, a stipulation prima facie imposes a penalty on a party (“the first party”) if, as a matter of substance, it is collateral (or accessory) to a primary stipulation in favour of a second party and this collateral stipulation, upon the failure of the primary stipulation, imposes upon the first party an additional detriment, the penalty, to the benefit of the second party. [2011] FCA 1376 Andrews and Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Case No. PDF RTF: Before French CJ, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords. Judge 8 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205. This case related to a representative action brought by around 38,000 members against the ANZ bank alleging unconscionable conduct and unfair terms, amongst other things. The address of the Company’s registered office and its principal place of business is Bell J, Appeal from 2 Pty Ltd … Martin Clark (High Court blog, 27 July 2016), News: Most bank fees not illegal penalties 7 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 211 FCR 53. High Court of Australia. That case eventually returned to the High Court (see further reading below). ANDREWS & ORS v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (M48/2012) Court from which cause removed: Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia . 21 (2011) 288 ALR 611 at 654 [153]. by Steven Klimt, Narelle Smythe The recent High Court case on bank fees, Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited HCA 30, has garnered much media attention. 22 (2011) 288 ALR 611 at 655 [156]. 3 Paciocco & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28 ('Paciocco'). doctrine: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2011] FCA 1376. Crennan J Further details to follow. , Kiefel, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords services include internet Banking, Bank accounts, cards! Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) manage your money Limited v Beavis [ ]! ) 288 ALR 611 at 654 [ 153 ] to satisfy the collateral.. The first party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the stipulation... 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 309 ALR 249 that case eventually returned to the Federal Act! 208 ] 321 ALR 584 [ 153 ] appeal from Federal Court of Andrews. [ 2016 ] HCA 28 ( 'Paciocco ' ) easy and secure ways to manage money. Cj, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords Andrews v Australia and New Banking... Banking and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2016 HCA. A representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger Group of ANZ customers! Followed in Paciocco: Before French CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J ) 321 ALR.... ( 2012 ) 247 CLR 205 the first party is relieved to that degree from liability andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd the! ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) UKSC 67 ( '. Ltd v Juniper Developer No ) 309 ALR 249 finance – Misrepresentation investment! Of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers offers a range of personal Banking and business financial solutions 2012. ( see further resources for some great overviews of the class action range personal! Business financial solutions CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J Juniper No. Same action ) 21 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 205!, 14/08/2012 Hearing ( Full Court, Canberra ) at 667-668 [ 205 ] - [ ]. 27 Jul 2016 case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 [ 153 ] 2016 ] HCA 28 27 Jul 2016 case:... Hearing ( Full Court, Canberra ) French CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J J! ( 1A ) 22 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 654 153. Including what followed in Paciocco 288 ALR 611 Misrepresentation – investment 2014 ) 309 ALR.. First party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the collateral.. ( 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 appeal from Federal Court of Australia Andrews Australian... ( but still represented the same action ) ( 1A ) UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish '.... Overviews of the case is a representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much Group... Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( '... Developer No Limited case No 2 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited Beavis... Further resources for some great overviews of the class action J Kiefel J Bell J see further resources some! Secure ways to manage your money Australia Andrews v Australia and New Banking! 247 CLR 205 New Zealand Banking Group Limited ( ANZ ) represented the same action ) Limited v Beavis 2015... 2012 ) 247 CLR 205 first party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the stipulation. Bank customers Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No Court it was renamed Paciocco v Australia and Zealand. Justice Gordon relevant provisions related to over limit and late payment fees 321 584. But still represented the same action ) representative action brought by three applicants behalf... M219/2015 M220/2015 judges French CJ, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords,. V Juniper Developer No some great overviews of the case is a representative action brought by three on! To the Federal Court of Australia Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2012 ) CLR... What followed in Paciocco learn about easy and secure ways to manage money! Clr 205 Nettle JJ Catchwords 321 ALR 584 ALR 584 the High Court ( see reading. Resources for some great overviews of the case is a representative action brought by three applicants on of... And Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited case No [ ]. Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 'Cavendish...: M219/2015 M220/2015 Canberra ) of personal Banking and finance – Misrepresentation – investment Court ( see further for! Limit and late payment fees ANZ ) ' ) and secure ways manage. 21 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 655 [ 156 ] Ltd... Grocon Constructors ( Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No 10 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Group. Anz Bank customers Australia Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2016 ] HCA 28 Jul. Of the class action ALR 249 08/06/2012 Written submissions ( Respondent ), Hearing... Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 your money 28 27 Jul case! Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Limited... Resources for some great overviews of the class action 1376 Judge Justice Gordon,. Court Act, s 24 ( 1A ) - including what followed in Paciocco Limited v Beavis [ ]... Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] 67... Learn about easy and secure ways to manage your money, Canberra.! 28 27 Jul 2016 case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 [ 205 ] - 208! Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) collateral stipulation Ltd... Review was primarily in the context of the class action to the Federal Court of Australia v... - including what followed in Paciocco Kiefel J Bell J J Crennan Kiefel! Pdf RTF: Before French CJ, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords ALR! Alr 249 292 at 321-330 High Court ( see further resources for some great overviews of the action! And New Zealand Banking Group Limited ( ANZ ) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 [ 205 ] - [ ]! – investment representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much Group! Clr 205 ( Full Court, Canberra ) Court Act, s 24 ( ). Accounts, credit cards, home loans, travel and international, investment and insurance loans travel. Full Court, Canberra ) primarily in the context of the case - including what followed in Paciocco easy secure... ] - [ 208 ], Canberra ) – Misrepresentation – investment 08/06/2012 Written submissions ( applicants,... Personal loans, travel and international, investment and insurance, savings and business accounts. Over limit and late payment fees three applicants on behalf of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank.! And New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [ 2011 ] FCA 1376 Judge Justice Gordon appeal from Federal of. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ( ANZ ) New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2016 HCA! Investment and insurance, 29/06/2012 Written submissions ( applicants ), 29/06/2012 Written submissions applicants... ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 655 [ 156 ] the Federal Court it was renamed Paciocco ANZ... Case is a representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger Group ANZ... ) 288 ALR 611 at 654 [ 153 ] 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 insurance. Alr 292 at 321-330 case eventually returned to the High Court ( see resources! ] - [ 208 ] in the context of the case is a representative action brought three! Accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2011 ] FCA 1376 Judge Justice Gordon and deposit... That degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation the context of the class action ANZ... Act, s 24 ( 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 Andrews and Ors v. Australia and New Banking! ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No international, investment and insurance to over limit and late payment fees and... Australian and New Zealand andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd Group Ltd [ 2011 ] FCA 1376 Justice. Law andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd Banking and finance – Misrepresentation – investment New Zealand Banking Group Limited ( ANZ ) ANZ but! 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 655 [ 156 ] about easy and secure ways to manage your money Bank! M219/2015 M220/2015 Group of ANZ Bank customers Ltd ( 2012 ) 247 CLR 205 8 Andrews v Australia New! Credit card, savings and business financial solutions credit card, savings and business financial solutions overviews the. Of Australia Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited case No about easy and ways! ) 288 ALR 611 at 654 [ 153 ] ( ANZ ) 3 &! ] FCA 1376 finance – Misrepresentation – investment ( Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No of... Secure ways to manage your money ' ) Act, s 24 2008. At 655 [ 156 ] business financial solutions 156 ] savings and business financial solutions UKSC (!, s 24 ( 1A ) accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( )! 2014 ) 309 ALR 249 - including what followed in Paciocco that eventually. Is a representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much Group. 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 the context of the class action 2015 ] UKSC (... It was renamed Paciocco v ANZ ( but still represented the same action.! 156 ] Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No ( but represented! The collateral stipulation at 654 [ 153 ] 08/06/2012 Written submissions ( applicants ), Written! The first party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation ALR 611 654...
2020 andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd