ANZ Faces $125M Liability After High Court Class Action Ruling

Auckland High Court Justice Geoffrey Venning delivered a significant ruling on Tuesday, finding against ANZ New Zealand in a high-stakes class action lawsuit centered on historic breaches of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). The decision, which could expose the country’s largest bank to a potential settlement liability of up to $125 million, marks a major escalation in a legal battle involving approximately 17,000 customers.

The Scope of the ANZ Class Action Lawsuit Outcome

The case concerns disclosure errors made by the bank between 2015 and 2019, specifically related to loan variation letters that contained inaccurate information due to a technical coding error in a loan calculator. Under the CCCFA provisions active during that period, lenders who failed to meet disclosure requirements were theoretically liable to refund borrowers all interest and fees charged during the period of non-compliance. While ANZ had previously identified the issue, reported it to the Commerce Commission, and paid $35 million in remediation, the court has now ruled that this was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements.

Legal Stakes and Financial Implications

Justice Venning rejected the bank’s argument that the consequences were disproportionate to the actual harm, noting that the errors were economically significant and eroded market trust. The court directed the bank to refund representative plaintiffs $32,728.42, a precedent that the class action lawyers are now expected to apply to the wider group of 17,000 affected customers. ANZ Chief Executive Antonia Watson expressed disappointment with the judgment, stating that the bank is currently reviewing the decision and considering an appeal. The bank maintains that its prior remediation efforts left customers in a better financial position than they would have been otherwise.

Institutional Precedent and Regulatory Landscape

This ruling follows a similar $135.6 million settlement reached by ASB last year regarding comparable CCCFA breaches. The ongoing legal pressure highlights the strict interpretation of consumer protection laws, even when financial institutions self-report technical errors. While the government has since moved to amend the CCCFA to prevent such retrospective liabilities in the future, the current case continues to serve as a pivotal test for how historic disclosure failures are adjudicated in the New Zealand banking sector. The final impact on ANZ’s balance sheet remains subject to the potential appeal process and the final court-ordered application of the judgment across the class.

The court’s decision underscores a shift in judicial scrutiny toward the technical integrity of consumer credit products, signaling that internal remediation efforts do not automatically exempt financial institutions from statutory penalties under the CCCFA.