Select Committee Blocks ANZ’s Legislative End Run
In a decision that sent tremors through the executive suites of New Zealand’s banking establishment, Parliament’s Finance & Expenditure Select Committee has delivered what can only be described as a judicial body blow to Big Banking’s most audacious gambit yet: attempting to legislate away a class action mid-flight.
The Committee recommended that a controversial retrospective clause in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Amendment) Bill should not apply to the Banking Class Action currently before the courts, preserving what litigation partner Scott Russell of Russell van Hout Legal calls “a vital affirmation of legal integrity and consumer rights.”
>> New Law Job – Legal Counsel to Iconic Kiwi Company
ANZ’s attempt to get Parliament to do what its lawyers apparently couldn’t do, namely kill the case, has spectacularly failed.
The move follows the ASB’s $135.6 million settlement of the legal action recently.
The Power Lawyer Behind the Punch
Russell, a former Bell Gully lawyer who sharpened his skills at biglaw London firms before serving as Head of Litigation for Virgin Media, has rapidly emerged as one of New Zealand’s most accomplished litigators.
His inclusion in the forthcoming 2025 LawFuel Power List isn’t mere recognition but also confirmation of the emergence of lawyers who are accustomed to working effectively on commercial, legal and media levels to secure the outcome they want.
After returning to New Zealand and working for the Commerce Commission, Russell founded his own firm, now Russell van Hout Legal, handling cases for heavyweight clients including Air New Zealand, HSBC, and Goldman Sachs.
The irony of a lawyer with Big Finance credentials now leading the charge against them is not lost on observers.
Russell holds an LLB (Hons), a BCom in Economics and an MBA from Auckland University.
When Banks Try to Rewrite the Rules
The Banking Class Action, filed in 2021, alleges that ANZ breached key disclosure obligations under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, potentially affecting tens of thousands of New Zealand customers.
When the case refused to quietly disappear, the banking sector lobbied for a retrospective law change. Russell noted the recommendation came “in the face of extensive lobbying by the banking sector to have the retrospective change apply to the Banking Class Action.”
The Systemic Risk That Wasn’t
The banks’ justification for the move was systemic financial risk.
Russell pointed out that Reserve Bank analysis explicitly stated no immediate systemic risk exists, and that previously cited financial impacts were “speculative” rather than grounded in real-world scenarios.
“Every justification for making the proposed change has proven to be false,” he said.
The Reserve Bank’s own analysis quietly demolished the banking sector’s Chicken Little routine, noting that scenarios presented by MBIE were based on speculative modelling and that real-world analysis “does not immediately suggest a systemic effect.”
A Win for the Rule of Law Over the Rule of Lobbying
Russell described the Committee’s decision as a win for the rule of law over lobbying pressure. “We commend the Committee for recognising that fairness and the rule of law must come before corporate interests, and we urge Parliament to take on board their recommendations.”
The Select Committee’s backbone is particularly notable given the thousands of submissions it reviewed and the near-universal opposition from legal experts who we have reported, including senior commercial lawyer Andrew Harmos, (pictured) as well as consumer advocates, and business leaders to retroactively changing the law in an active case.
What’s at Stake
The case sets precedent for safeguarding consumer access to legal redress and stands as one of the largest such actions in New Zealand history, with potential refunds for over 100,000 bank customers.
The High Court hearing scheduled for March 2026 will determine whether ANZ’s alleged disclosure breaches warrant what could amount to a multibillion-dollar reckoning. Russell emphasized that “this recommendation preserves the rights of consumers to have their claims against ANZ properly determined by the courts under the law as it stood when the relevant events occurred.”
The New Guard
Russell’s rapid ascent to power lawyer status reflects more than courtroom prowess. His commercial approach and strong international networks are matched by both experience in major commercial disputes and class actions as well as some good PR skills.
He represents a new breed of litigator, commercially sophisticated enough to speak banking’s language, but unbeholden to its interests. The combination is proving lethal to defendants who assumed they could simply outlast, outspend, or out-influence their opposition.
The Verdict (So Far)
The Select Committee’s recommendation isn’t final legislation. Parliament still must vote. But the writing is on the mahogany-paneled wall: retrospective law changes to kill active litigation are a bridge too far, even for bank-friendly MPs.
For Scott Russell, it’s vindication. For ANZ, it’s a reckoning delayed but not denied.
The Banking Class Action hearing is scheduled for March 2026 in the High Court.
