The lawyer representing the customers in the class action, Scott Russell, said: \u201cThe next step in the proceeding will depend on a number of factors, including whether ANZ appeals.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis judgment is an important step in holding ANZ accountable under consumer protection legislation designed to ensure borrowers receive accurate information about their loans.\u201d<\/p>\n
ANZ chief executive Antonia Watson was disappointed with the court\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe opposed the claim because we felt strongly that the law was not intended to operate in the way the plaintiffs and the litigation funders suggested,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe maintain that the potential consequences under the current law are disproportionate and not aligned with any actual harm caused.\u201d<\/p>\n
Watson noted ANZ\u2019s errors saw the average customer included in the class action pay $2 less than they were required.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs a result, all customers were left better off than they would have been if the issue had not occurred,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
ASB had been captured by the same class action. However, in October, it agreed to a settlement of nearly $136m, and has since been paying out customers.<\/p>\n
The Government is in the process of amending the version of the CCCFA that applied to the period between 2015 and 2019, so that the default penalty is no longer for the lender to reimburse a borrower all the borrowing costs they paid for the duration of the breach.<\/p>\n
Once the law is updated to align more with how it is applied to breaches that occur today, penalties will have to be fair and equitable.<\/p>\n