ANZ’s outgoing CEO Antonia Watson leaves with a major litigation gamble hanging over the bank, specifically an appeal against a High Court ruling that could cost up to NZ$125 million and reshape expectations around consumer credit compliance.
Her departure coincides with a moment where ANZ’s problem is no longer simply a technical disclosure breach, but is also the decision to fight on while a rival, ASB, has already paid NZ$135.6 million to settle similar claims and move on.
Justice Geoffrey Venning’s summary judgment found that ANZ breached section 22 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act by failing to give compliant variation disclosure on certain home loan changes, and that affected customers were not liable for the “costs of borrowing”, interest and fees, charged during the breach period.
ANZ itself has put the potential exposure at about NZ$125 million if that reasoning is applied across the class. Rather than take the decision as a signal to negotiate, ANZ has gone to the Court of Appeal.
That strategy carries obvious justice‑and‑reputation risks. Around 17,000 customers are in the class, and the relevant conduct dates back to 2015–2016, in proceedings filed in 2021.
ASB has secured court approval of its settlement and certainty for its customers. ANZ’s customers, by contrast, face yet more delay while the bank continues to hold funds a judge has said they were not liable to pay.
The Banking Class Action is also ready to cement its win with a potential cross‑appeal seeking interest on amounts to be refunded, arguing that customers have been deprived of the use of their money while ANZ has benefited from retaining it.
If the Court of Appeal upholds the Ven ning judgment and entertains an interest component, the cost of continuing to litigate may exceed the price of an earlier settlement.
ANZ argues that the errors were technical and that customers have already been compensated through remediation, and that Parliament never intended the CCCFA to impose such harsh consequences for a coding mistake.
Against that, the plaintiffs and funders frame the case as a consumer fairness test, namely when a major bank accepts there were disclosure failures and a court says customers were not liable for the charges, how long should it be allowed to defer repayment through appeals?
Watson’s successor inherits not just a legacy of strong profitability and regulatory engagement, but a live question: will ANZ ultimately be seen as standing on principle about the scope of strict liability, or as having turned a self‑reported compliance failure into a drawn‑out justice problem for thousands of its own customers?
