ANZ to Appeal High Court Ruling in $125 Million Class Action
ANZ Bank New Zealand will appeal a High Court decision that found it breached mortgage variation disclosure rules, exposing the bank to potential liability of up to $125 million across roughly 17,000 customers.
"We maintain that the potential consequences under the current law are disproportionate and not aligned with any actual harm caused."Antonia Watson, ANZ New Zealand CEO
Cabinet’s Economic Policy Committee has formally authorised public consultation on a prudential levy to shift Reserve Bank supervision costs onto banks, insurers and market infrastructure operators from 2027/28.
Australian-based users viewing New Zealand property listings jumped 190% year-on-year in August, realestate.co.nz said, after Canberra tightened capital gains and negative gearing rules on new residential investments.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has refused the Reserve Bank’s first bid to roll $10.1 million of 2025/26 underspend into 2026/27 and published three criteria that will govern every future variation under the 2025–30 Five-Year Funding Agreement.
ANZ Bank New Zealand announced on 29 May 2026 that it will appeal the Auckland High Court ruling in the Simons v ANZ class action. Justice Geoffrey Venning granted summary judgment against the bank earlier in May, finding breaches of section 22 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.
The case centres on a coding error in ANZ's loan calculator between 6 June 2015 and 28 May 2016. The error affected disclosure accuracy for customers who made in-branch or phone-based changes to their mortgages. The court ordered refunds of borrowing costs for representative plaintiffs totalling $32,728.42. ANZ estimates maximum liability at $125 million if the decision applies across the full class.
ANZ had already self-reported the issue to the Commerce Commission and paid more than $35 million in remediation to affected customers before the class action proceeded.
Contrast with ASB Settlement
The parallel class action against ASB, a Commonwealth Bank of Australia subsidiary, ended differently. ASB settled for NZ$135.6 million (approximately A$118 million) without admitting liability. The settlement received court approval around January 2026. The divergent approaches highlight differing risk assessments among the major banks.
ANZ's Position and CEO Statement
ANZ and ASB: class action financial stakes compared
ANZ chose to contest the claim; ASB settled its parallel action for NZ$135.6m without admitting liability. ANZ had already paid $35m+ in remediation before the High Court ruling.
Source: ANZ, The Australian
ANZ maintains the law's application produces disproportionate outcomes relative to any actual customer harm. Customers on average underpaid by about $2 per month during the affected period.
We 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. We maintain that the potential consequences under the current law are disproportionate and not aligned with any actual harm caused.
— Antonia Watson, ANZ New Zealand CEO
Profit Context and Sector Implications
ANZ NZ earnings vs $125m class action exposure
The $125m maximum exposure equals roughly 10% of ANZ NZ's most recent half-year profit, limiting immediate capital risk while leaving reputational and precedent concerns unresolved.
Source: ANZ New Zealand
The $125 million exposure represents a fraction of ANZ New Zealand's earnings. The bank reported cash net profit after tax of $1,238 million for the six months to 31 March 2026. Full-year cash profit to 30 September 2025 reached $2,369 million.
Key Financial and Exposure Figures
ANZ Half-Year Cash Profit (to Mar 2026)
$1,238 million
ANZ Full-Year Cash Profit (to Sep 2025)
$2,369 million
Maximum Potential Class Liability
$125 million
ASB Parallel Settlement
$135.6 million
Affected ANZ Customers
~17,000
ANZ half-year and full-year cash profits provide context for the $125 million maximum liability estimate.
Source: ANZ New Zealand results releases and court documents
Compliance costs from such litigation can flow through to customers via higher fees or wider interest rate margins. Mortgage lending remains a core revenue driver for New Zealand's major banks. The case adds to sector-wide scrutiny of disclosure practices under the CCCFA's strict liability provisions.
Litigation Funding and Legal Landscape
The proceedings form part of growing opt-out class actions in New Zealand, supported by court rulings on common fund orders. Section 99(1A) of the CCCFA disentitles lenders from charging costs of borrowing during disclosure breach periods. A 2025 amendment bill introduced 'just and equitable' remedies but carved out the ANZ and ASB actions following submissions.
The appeal will test the boundaries of strict statutory interpretation against arguments of proportionality and prior remediation. Higher courts will hear arguments on whether economic harm must be shown before full repayment of interest and fees is ordered.
Peer banks including BNZ, Westpac and Kiwibank face indirect pressure to review their own variation disclosure processes. The outcome could influence future compliance investment and product design across the sector.
