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