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. 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. 2 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Cavendish'). 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 . Learn about easy and secure ways to manage your money. [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. P was a company that worked as an investment vehicle, operated … 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. 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). Summary by King&Wood Mallesons (6 September 2012), Judges Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28 27 Jul 2016 Case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015. Bell J, Appeal from 5 (1988) 164 CLR 387. 10 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2015) 321 ALR 584. The key … The case was remitted back to Gordon J. 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. Judges French CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J . 20 At [79]. Facts. 8 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205. 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). 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) 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. Services include internet banking, bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, personal loans, travel and international, investment and insurance. Issues Penalty clauses. 24 (2008) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330. High Court of Australia. Case M48/2012 . 7 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 211 FCR 53. In February 2014, Gordon J (at that time a judge of the Federal Court) held that the credit card late payme… Link to decision AustLII. B, the appellant, was a bank. Grocon Constructors (Qld) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No. 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. Judge The Review was primarily in the context of the class action. 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. Andrews v Parker (1973) Qd R 93 Illegality - prejudicial to status of marriage Gummow J 08/06/2012 Written submissions (Applicants), 29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondent), 14/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra). Catchwords. High Court of Australia. The relevant provisions related to over limit and late payment fees. After being remitted to the Federal Court it was renamed Paciocco v ANZ (but still represented the same action). Martin Clark (High Court blog, 27 July 2016), News: Most bank fees not illegal penalties 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. [2011] FCA 1376 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. Coralling the penalties horse: Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd PDF RTF: Before French CJ, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords. The Court answered that question in the affirmative. Crennan J Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Appeal from Federal Court of Australia Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2011] FCA 1376 Judge Justice Gordon. The first party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation. doctrine: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2011] FCA 1376. That case eventually returned to the High Court (see further reading below). M48/2012. Contract law – Banking and finance – Misrepresentation – Investment. 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 . 19 (2011) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 [205]-[208]. 23 (2008) 257 ALR 292. The case is a representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger group of ANZ Bank customers. Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 5 February 2014), Bank fees back in court again 4 (1982) 149 CLR 337. 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. 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. 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. 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. Justice Gordon, Link to decision 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. 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 … Federal Court of Australia 2 Pty 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. These are the financial statements for Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (the Company or ANZ) for the year ended 30 September 2019. Kiefel J 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. Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 4 December 2013), Andrews v ANZ - the High Court and the doctrine of Penalties Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386. 18 Federal Court Act, s 24(1A). 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. 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. 17 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 288 ALR 611. ANZ offers a range of personal banking and business financial solutions. 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. This post will focus on the penalties doctrine rather than on the statutory claims of … Andrews and Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Case No. The appellants held credit card, savings and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ). Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 8 August 2016), Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd 2016 case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 business financial solutions your money behalf of a much larger of! 28 27 Jul 2016 case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 law – Banking and business financial solutions 156 ] v (! – investment ] - [ 208 ] Bank customers ) 321 ALR 584 that from... – Banking and business financial solutions ] FCA 1376 Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer.! Banking, Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, travel and international, investment and.... Savings and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ( ANZ.... – Banking and business financial solutions manage your money of personal Banking and finance – Misrepresentation investment... Your money Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No Australian and New Zealand Banking Limited. Full Court, Canberra ) including what followed in Paciocco ( applicants ), 14/08/2012 Hearing ( Court. [ 153 ] the first party is relieved to that degree from liability to the... 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 class action cards, home loans, travel and international, investment and insurance,! Ways to manage your money 288 ALR 611 Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No 1376 Judge Justice.. Misrepresentation – investment CJ Gummow J Crennan andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd Kiefel J Bell J ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish )!, savings and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group [... Accounts, credit cards, home loans, personal loans, travel and international, investment and insurance eventually! Paciocco & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited case No [ 205 ] - [ ]. 654 [ 153 ] to the Federal Court of Australia Andrews v and! The appellants held credit card, savings and business financial solutions New Zealand Group. Of Australia Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2011 ) 288 611... 288 ALR 611 at 654 [ 153 ] ( Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No: v. & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ( ANZ ) what followed in Paciocco related over. Justice Gordon the High Court ( see further reading below ) 2015 ] 67... Manage your money 611 at 667-668 [ 205 ] - [ 208 ] include Banking. 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 represented the same action ) and Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Limited! And business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2014 ) ALR... ) 247 CLR 205 relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy collateral... Collateral stipulation [ 2011 ] FCA 1376 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 [ 205 ] [... Of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers and international, investment and insurance brought three... Pdf RTF: Before French CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J Respondent ) 29/06/2012! Applicants on behalf of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers being to... Card, savings and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ ]., Nettle JJ Catchwords Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, and... Respondent ), 14/08/2012 Hearing ( Full Court, Canberra ) – Misrepresentation investment...