New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pecuniary penalties

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2023

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v MEDICAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3312

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3312
Court

High Court

Court accepted MAS had contravened s 22 FMCA across four discrete issues, accepted parties' agreed starting point of $3,000,000 and a 30% aggregate discount for cooperation, remediation and self-reporting, and imposed a pecuniary penalty of $2,100,000; court also made declarations of contravention and ordered the penalty be applied first to the FMA's actual costs under s 493 FMCA based on statutory factors and comparator authorities.
28 Jun 2023

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LTD [2023] NZHC 1625

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1625
Court

High Court

Because Tiger admitted the four statutory AML/CFT breaches, cooperated, and the agreed starting points and admitted discount fell within the range established by the Act and relevant authorities, the Court imposed a pecuniary penalty of NZD 900,000 and made permanent suppression orders with costs to the FMA on a 2B basis.
5 May 2023

COMMERCE COMMISSION v VECTOR LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1075

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1075
Court

High Court

The Court imposed the agreed pecuniary penalty of $1,158,400 because, applying s87(4) factors, the agreed starting points for 2017–2020 and a 36% mitigation discount are within an appropriate range given the extent of contraventions, Vector's cooperation and remedial actions, the substantial contribution of health and safety measures to outages, and the need to account for totality with the prior $3,575,000 penalty for 2015–2016.
22 Dec 2022

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v CIGNA LIFE INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3610

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3610
Court

High Court

Cigna admitted breaches of s22(d),(f) and (h); the court accepted the FMA's interpretation that the relevant transaction consideration could support a maximum penalty of at least NZD100,000,000 but set a starting point of NZD5,500,000 after weighing s492 factors and comparable authorities, then applied a 35% discount for prompt self-reporting, full cooperation, remediation and first-time contravention to arrive at a final pecuniary penalty of NZD3,575,000, with the penalty to be applied first to the FMA's costs.
23 Sept 2022

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v AIA NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2444

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2444
Court

High Court

AIA committed multiple contraventions of s22 FMCA by issuing misleading Anniversary Letters across three issues (Passback Benefits, Age Termination, Incorrect Inflation Adjustments); the appropriate starting point was fixed at NZD 1,000,000 (20% of the NZD 5,000,000 statutory maximum for a single contravention) and after allowing a 30% overall discount for self-reporting, cooperation and early admission the court imposed a pecuniary penalty of NZD 700,000 together with declarations of contravention and an order that the penalty be applied first to the FMA's costs.
10 Jun 2022

TE KOMIHANA TAUHOKOHOKO/COMMERCE COMMISSION v OCEANBRIDGE SHIPPING LTD [2022] NZHC 1371

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1371
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the defendants' admissions that Oceanbridge entered into and gave effect to multiple unlawful one-way and two-way customer allocation arrangements and occasional cover pricing in breach of ss 27 and 30; having assessed seriousness, seniority, duration, market importance, limited but significant deceptive conduct, cooperation and prompt cessation, the Court found the agreed penalties of $4.6 million for Oceanbridge and $100,000 for Mr Speedy were within the appropriate range to achieve specific and general deterrence and ordered those pecuniary penalties, with ancillary conf…
1 Sept 2021

COMMERCE COMMISSION v SPECIALISED CONTAINER SERVICES (CHRISTCHURCH) LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2279

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2279
Court

High Court

Court found the admitted single, deliberate telephone attempt to fix VBS booking fees breached s 30; it approved the parties' agreed starting point ranges ($500,000–$650,000 corporate; $25,000–$30,000 individual), applied a 20% discount, accepted SCS Christchurch's inability to pay and Pinnacle's undertaking, and imposed final penalties of $62,500 on SCS Christchurch (to be funded by Pinnacle) and $24,000 on Mr Tregurtha, and awarded costs of $12,500 against SCS Christchurch.
5 Mar 2021

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2021] NZHC 399

Citation

(2021) 16 TCLR28
Court

High Court

ANZ contravened s22(d) and/or (h) by issuing statements that charged for duplicate CCRI policies and contravened s22(a) and/or (h) by issuing statements charging ineligible CCRI customers; having adopted a starting point of NZD 400,000 to reflect culpability and deterrence and allowed a 30% discount for remediation and cooperation, the appropriate pecuniary penalty is NZD 280,000, and declarations and an order that the penalty be applied first to the FMA's costs are made.
8 Sept 2020

COMMERCE COMMISSION v LODGE REAL ESTATE LTD [2020] NZHC 2329

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2329
Court

High Court

The consensus among Hamilton agencies constituted an arrangement that interfered with the competitive setting of price and therefore contravened ss 27 and 30. Starting points for corporate penalties were set within the range applied to comparable Hamilton participants ($1.7–$2.1m). Considering market shares, roles, absence of evidence that Lodge or Monarch were ringleaders, lack of aggravating individual factors, and parity with other attending directors, Lodge was ordered to pay $2.1 million and Monarch $1.9 million. No pecuniary penalties were ordered against Mr O'Rourke or Mr King because…
31 Jul 2020

COMMERCE COMMISSION v LODGE REAL ESTATE LTD [2020] NZHC 1909

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1909
Court

High Court

The court concluded the requested financial year-end statements are relevant and important to the mandatory s80 assessment of commercial gain and to inform the financial position of individual proprietors; HCR 8.19 and 8.7 permit particular discovery of such documents; solicitors' written assurances did not render the statements irrelevant; the court therefore exercised its discretion to order production of the specified financial statements from the first and third defendants.