In a victory that arguably would never have been possible without the strategic deployment of litigation funding to level the playing field, the High Court has awarded summary judgment against ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (ANZ NZ). The decision, delivered by Justice Geoffrey Venning on 4 May 2026, holds the bank accountable for disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA).
The action follows last year’s settlement of the class action against the ASB bank, which had alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act.
The ruling highlights a central theme previously explored by LawFuel: that while ANZ attempted to frame its breaches as technical “glitches” and lobbied for retrospective law changes to escape liability, it was the persistent, well-resourced pressure of a funded class action that finally brought the bank to book.
As we noted in “ANZ’s CCCFA Defence: The Dog Ate My Compliance Calculator,” the bank’s efforts to argue that the law should apply differently to a multi-billion dollar institution than to its customers have finally met the “cold light of the statute.”
The Failure of the “No Harm” Defense
The proceedings, served on ANZ in September 2021, were brought by the Banking Class Action Group on behalf of 17,000 customers. The case centered on a coding error in ANZ’s loan systems affecting variation letters issued between June 2015 and May 2016. While ANZ emphasized that the error resulted in average underpayments of just $2 per month, Justice Venning’s ruling reinforced that the CCCFA is a strict liability regime.
The Court found that under Section 22, the bank’s failure to provide accurate disclosure meant the representative plaintiffs were not liable for the “costs of borrowing” (interest and fees) during the breach period. ANZ was directed to refund the lead plaintiffs NZ$32,728.42—a figure that serves as a blueprint for the bank’s potential NZ$125 million exposure across the wider class.
Litigation Funding: The Engine of Accountability
This landmark result serves as a case study for the necessity of litigation funding in New Zealand. Backed by LPF Group and CASL, the action allowed 17,000 individual borrowers—who would otherwise lack the resources to challenge New Zealand’s largest bank—to pursue a claim that the bank aggressively resisted.
Unlike ASB Bank, which settled its portion of the class action in 2025 for roughly NZ$135 million without admitting liability, ANZ chose to litigate. The resulting summary judgment is a formal judicial confirmation of breach that cannot be easily dismissed as a mere “administrative error.”
ANZ’s Disappointment and the “Just and Equitable” Gap
ANZ NZ CEO Antonia Watson (above) expressed disappointment, maintaining that the consequences are “disproportionate” to the harm. This aligns with the bank’s long-standing narrative that technical breaches should not trigger massive statutory penalties.
However, the bank’s position highlights a significant legislative gap. While the government has recently recommended amendments to allow “just and equitable” orders to mitigate penalties for technical errors, these changes are not retrospective. By fighting the case now, ANZ has been held to the standard of the law as it was written at the time of the breach—a standard they unsuccessfully lobbied Parliament to change after the fact.
The Legal Precedent
Lawyer Scott Russell, representing the plaintiffs, described the judgment as a vital step in ensuring borrowers receive accurate information. For the legal profession, the case confirms that:
- Strict Liability Remains: Technical errors in disclosure, no matter how small the financial impact, trigger automatic statutory penalties.
- The “Contractor Defense” is Moot: Banks cannot farm out compliance and then disclaim responsibility for the output.
- Funded Actions are Here to Stay: The use of “Common Fund Orders” in this case has established a viable path for large-scale consumer redress in New Zealand.
ANZ NZ has stated it is considering an appeal. Should they proceed, the appeal court will be asked to decide whether the so-called “draconian” nature of the CCCFA can be softened by judicial discretion, or if the bank must finally pay the price for its “compliance calculator” failures.
The ANZ Bank can well afford a penalty for its non-compliance. Last year’s after-tax profit in New Zealand was almost $1.4 billion. Compliance with the law comes at a far lesser price.
