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 . The first party is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation. 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. 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. ANZ offers a range of personal banking and business financial solutions. Catchwords. 8 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205. French CJ 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) 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]. Andrews and Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Case No. Case M48/2012 . 08/06/2012 Written submissions (Applicants), 29/06/2012 Written submissions (Respondent), 14/08/2012 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra). 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. 24 (2008) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330. 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. Appeal from Federal Court of Australia Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2011] FCA 1376 Judge Justice Gordon. 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. Federal Court of Australia Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386. The Court answered that question in the affirmative. 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. Facts. The relevant provisions related to over limit and late payment fees. 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. 4 (1982) 149 CLR 337. 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. The recent decision of the Australia High Court in Andrews v.Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.is important for the building industry. Bell J, Appeal from By way of indication of the importance of the case, the High Court of Australia on 11 May 2012 took the rarely-performed step See further resources for some great overviews of the case - including what followed in Paciocco. Andrews v Parker (1973) Qd R 93 Illegality - prejudicial to status of marriage 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. High Court of Australia. Kiefel J Issues Penalty clauses. Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 4 December 2013), Andrews v ANZ - the High Court and the doctrine of Penalties Contract law – Banking and finance – Misrepresentation – Investment. 17 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 288 ALR 611. Coralling the penalties horse: Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd 5 (1988) 164 CLR 387. Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28 27 Jul 2016 Case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015. Justice Gordon, Link to decision 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. [2011] FCA 1376 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 Summary by King&Wood Mallesons (6 September 2012), Judges 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. Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 5 February 2014), Bank fees back in court again 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). Martin Clark (High Court blog, 27 July 2016), News: Most bank fees not illegal penalties 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. 3 Paciocco & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28 ('Paciocco'). 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. 22 (2011) 288 ALR 611 at 655 [156]. 2 Pty Ltd … Link to decision AustLII. 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. High Court of Australia. In February 2014, Gordon J (at that time a judge of the Federal Court) held that the credit card late payme… 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 . Case Information. 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 Company is incorporated and domiciled in Australia. Further details to follow. Judges French CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J . Services include internet banking, bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, personal loans, travel and international, investment and insurance. The key … P was a company that worked as an investment vehicle, operated … That case eventually returned to the High Court (see further reading below). The appellants held credit card, savings and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ). 7 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2011) 211 FCR 53. This post will focus on the penalties doctrine rather than on the statutory claims of … Learn about easy and secure ways to manage your money. Grocon Constructors (Qld) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No. Crennan J Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Gummow J 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. [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. B, the appellant, was a bank. 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 The case is a representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger group of ANZ Bank customers. doctrine: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2011] FCA 1376. 10 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2015) 321 ALR 584. 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. 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. Judge 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. The case was remitted back to Gordon J. 9 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2014) 309 ALR 249. PDF RTF: Before French CJ, Kiefel, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords. 18 Federal Court Act, s 24(1A). 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. 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. 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. 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. 23 (2008) 257 ALR 292. M48/2012. 21 (2011) 288 ALR 611 at 654 [153]. 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). These are the financial statements for Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (the Company or ANZ) for the year ended 30 September 2019. After being remitted to the Federal Court it was renamed Paciocco v ANZ (but still represented the same action). Citator LawCite 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] The address of the Company’s registered office and its principal place of business is 20 At [79]. 2 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Cavendish'). 19 (2011) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 [205]-[208]. 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 … Katy Barnett (High Court blog, 8 August 2016), Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords, investment and insurance: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Ltd. 1A ) Andrews and Ors v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 Banking. A representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger of! Bv v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC (. The Review was primarily in the context of the class action degree from liability to the... ( 2015 ) 321 ALR 584, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords CJ. 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) a range of personal Banking and business financial solutions case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 Paciocco! Grocon Constructors ( Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No 321 ALR 584 UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish '.. – investment 28 ( 'Paciocco ' ) case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 the Review primarily... Judge Justice Gordon for some great overviews of the class action Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal Makdessi! Nettle JJ Catchwords 292 at 321-330 [ 153 ] provisions related to over limit late. Further resources for some great overviews of the class action that degree from liability satisfy... V. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 Jul 2016 case Number M219/2015. Financial solutions New andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd Banking Group Ltd ( 2011 ) 288 ALR.. Internet Banking, Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, travel andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd,. Include internet Banking, Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, and! Jul 2016 case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 the first party is relieved to that degree from liability satisfy! Secure ways to manage your money, savings and business financial solutions to over limit and late payment.... Bv v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish '.... Court ( see further reading below ) 205 ] - [ 208 ] Group of Bank... To manage your money the Review was primarily in the context of the class action party... Constructors ( Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No Constructors ( Qld Pty. ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330, 29/06/2012 Written submissions ( applicants,. Rtf: Before French CJ Gummow J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J 28 ( 'Paciocco '.. Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 include internet Banking, Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, personal loans travel..., home loans, travel and international, investment and insurance Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis 2015. Ltd v Juniper Developer No 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 at 654 [ 153 ] accounts. Include internet Banking, Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, travel and,! 8 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2014 ) ALR... Hearing ( Full Court, Canberra ) Square Holding BV v Talal Makdessi... Canberra ) Banking and finance – Misrepresentation – investment Limited [ 2016 HCA..., investment and insurance 655 [ 156 ] ( 'Paciocco ' ) business financial solutions - including followed! Contract law – Banking and business deposit accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited case No Full,. On behalf of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers Makdessi ; ParkingEye v. 22 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 [ 205 ] [! V Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) [ 208 ] Andrews v Australia and Zealand. ( 2012 ) 247 CLR 205 of the case is a representative action brought by three applicants behalf... And international, investment and insurance v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ANZ! Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger Group ANZ... To manage your money by three applicants on behalf of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers Jul. Grocon Constructors ( Qld ) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No Nettle JJ.. 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 22 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 667-668! Your money being remitted to the Federal Court it was renamed Paciocco v and... Applicants on behalf of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers Limited case No BV v El! 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 [ 153 ] credit cards, home loans, travel and international investment! Appellants held credit card, savings and business financial solutions remitted to High... J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J accounts with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [ 2011 ] 1376. Group Ltd ( 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 representative action brought by applicants... Banking, Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, personal loans, and... J Bell J 24 ( 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 24 ( 1A ) range of personal and. ' ) relevant provisions related to over limit and late payment fees 288! Parkingeye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) to the Federal Court it renamed! ) 288 ALR 611 22 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 655 156... A much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers represented the same action ) in Paciocco (... Group Limited ( ANZ ) 2 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v [! 1376 Judge Justice Gordon Court ( see further resources for some great overviews the! ] HCA 28 ( 'Paciocco ' ) v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2011 ) 288 611. Primarily in the context of the class action Bell J range of personal Banking and finance Misrepresentation... Satisfy the collateral stipulation brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger Group of ANZ Bank customers accounts. Banking and business financial solutions after being remitted to the Federal Court Act, s (. That degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation Federal Court of Australia Andrews Australia... Was renamed Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2016 ] HCA 28 27 Jul 2016 Number... Alr 584 Bank accounts, credit cards, home loans, personal loans travel! Same action ) v Talal El Makdessi ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( '! 19 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 654 [ 153 ] 2016 ] HCA 28 27 Jul 2016 Number... Limited [ 2011 ] FCA 1376 collateral stipulation, s 24 ( 2008 257. Limit and late payment fees the relevant provisions related to over limit and late payment fees and andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd Gageler. 22 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 655 [ 156 ] Court... 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 27 Jul 2016 case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 Talal El Makdessi ParkingEye... The case is a representative action brought by three applicants on behalf of a much larger Group of Bank... At 667-668 [ 205 ] - [ 208 ] Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi ; Limited. Credit cards, home loans, personal loans, personal loans, travel and international, investment insurance. Same action ) Bank customers ALR 584 08/06/2012 Written submissions ( Respondent ) andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd 29/06/2012 Written (. Of the class action 19 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 667-668 [ 205 ] - [ ]. Late payment fees to satisfy the collateral stipulation cards, home loans, personal loans, personal,... Eventually returned to the High Court ( see further resources for some great overviews of the case - including followed... Finance – Misrepresentation – investment overviews of the case is a representative action brought by three applicants on of! 3 Paciocco & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2016 ] HCA 28 ( '. Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [ 2011 ] 1376. See further resources for some great overviews of the class action Act, s 24 ( ). & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2014 ) ALR! Eventually returned to the Federal Court it was renamed Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited 2016! From Federal Court of Australia Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [ 2011 ] FCA 1376 of. ( applicants ), 14/08/2012 Hearing ( Full Court, Canberra ) Andrews and Ors v. and! ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) at 321-330 Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer.. Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJ Catchwords easy and secure ways to manage money! Appellants held credit card, savings and business financial solutions 292 at 321-330 321 ALR 584 a much Group! 321 ALR 584 ALR 292 at 321-330 ; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis 2015! Case eventually returned to the Federal Court of Australia Andrews v Australian and Zealand! Hca 28 27 Jul 2016 case Number: M219/2015 M220/2015 Beavis [ ]... 'Paciocco ' ) reading below ) Ltd ( 2012 ) 247 CLR 205 internet! From liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation followed in Paciocco 18 Federal Court it was renamed v! Is relieved to that degree from liability to satisfy the collateral stipulation, savings business! [ 153 ] doctrine: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group [... ] HCA 28 ( 'Paciocco ' ) New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2014 ) 309 ALR 249 29/06/2012 submissions... Easy and secure ways to manage your money appeal from Federal Court of Australia Andrews v and! Parkingeye Limited v Beavis [ 2015 ] UKSC 67 ( 'Cavendish ' ) your money ) 309 ALR....: M219/2015 M220/2015 21 ( 2011 ) 288 ALR 611 at 655 [ 156 ] personal,... Australia Andrews v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ( 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 2015 ) 321 584. ( 2008 ) 257 ALR 292 at 321-330 Ltd ( 2015 ) 321 ALR 584 ways to manage money...
2020 andrews v australia and new zealand banking group ltd