According to this, CIGNA should be illegal:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-26/cigno-bhf-asic-payday-lender-high-court/101262872

However, they have successfully appealed and won in the Federal Court against ASIC.

So, there is more to the story, which I don't understand at all.

What was the basis for their Appeal? How did they win?

Why are they Appealing against ASIC's decision again?

Anyone know???

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:09:02 +1000, Noodle <oznoodle@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to this, CIGNA should be illegal:
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-26/cigno-bhf-asic-payday-lender-high-court/101262872
>
> However, they have successfully appealed and won in the Federal Court
> against ASIC.
>
> So, there is more to the story, which I don't understand at all.
>
> What was the basis for their Appeal? How did they win?
>
> Why are they Appealing against ASIC's decision again?
>
> Anyone know???

They essentially charge an account keeping fee instead
of just interest and that isn't currently illegal.

Also, again this points to a rule I have long known, since the 80's:

"Any Financial & All Products coming out of the Gold Coast, QLD are dodgy. Scrutinize them extra carefully. Caveat Emptor."

For example, YOUPLA Aboriginal Death Insurance Plan was also based in Coolangatta and is all over the news for rip-off's.

On 26-July-22 2:09 pm, Noodle wrote:
> According to this, CIGNA should be illegal:
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-26/cigno-bhf-asic-payday-lender-high-court/101262872
>
> However, they have successfully appealed and won in the Federal Court against ASIC.
>
> So, there is more to the story, which I don't understand at all.
>
> What was the basis for their Appeal? How did they win?
>
> Why are they Appealing against ASIC's decision again?
>
> Anyone know???

ASIC appealed to the full bench of the Federal Court against a decision
by the Federal Court by a single judge.

The issue is how the expression "charge ... for providing the credit” in
the National Credit Code.

The single judge appears to have construed it narrowly. On a brief
scanning of the full court judgement, that court appears to have said
that it encompasses everything (other than the actual repayments) that
the customer has to pay.

In the latter case, the credit providers are required to hold a credit
licence, but do not.

The overall issue is not yet decided. It will return to the single judge
for a decision based on the full court's interpretation of the law.

Sylvia.

On 26/07/2022 2:12 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:09:02 +1000, Noodle <oznoodle@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> According to this, CIGNA should be illegal:
>>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-26/cigno-bhf-asic-payday-lender-high-court/101262872
>>
>>
>> However, they have successfully appealed and won in the Federal Court
>> against ASIC.
>>
>> So, there is more to the story, which I don't understand at all.
>>
>> What was the basis for their Appeal?  How did they win?
>>
>> Why are they Appealing against ASIC's decision again?
>>
>> Anyone know???
>
> They essentially charge an account keeping fee instead
> of just interest and that isn't currently illegal.

The contract may involve penalty fees, which if are not equal to the
actual loss incurred by the lender, will be unenforceable in contract law.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> On 26/07/2022 2:12 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:09:02 +1000, Noodle <oznoodle@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According to this, CIGNA should be illegal:
>>>
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-26/cigno-bhf-asic-payday-lender-high-court/101262872
>>> However, they have successfully appealed and won in the Federal Court
>>> against ASIC.
>>>
>>> So, there is more to the story, which I don't understand at all.
>>>
>>> What was the basis for their Appeal? How did they win?
>>>
>>> Why are they Appealing against ASIC's decision again?
>>>
>>> Anyone know???
>> They essentially charge an account keeping fee instead
>> of just interest and that isn't currently illegal.
>
> The contract may involve penalty fees, which if are not equal to the
> actual loss incurred by the lender, will be unenforceable in contract
> law.

Irrelevant to the question being discussed, whether their activity is
illegal.

On 7/26/2022 2:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 26-July-22 2:09 pm, Noodle wrote:
>> According to this, CIGNA should be illegal:
>>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-26/cigno-bhf-asic-payday-lender-high-court/101262872
>>
>> However, they have successfully appealed and won in the Federal Court
>> against ASIC.
>>
>> So, there is more to the story, which I don't understand at all.
>>
>> What was the basis for their Appeal?  How did they win?
>>
>> Why are they Appealing against ASIC's decision again?
>>
>> Anyone know???
>
> ASIC appealed to the full bench of the Federal Court against a decision
> by the Federal Court by a single judge.
>
> The issue is how the expression "charge ... for providing the credit” in
> the National Credit Code.
>
> The single judge appears to have construed it narrowly. On a brief
> scanning of the full court judgement, that court appears to have said
> that it encompasses everything (other than the actual repayments) that
> the customer has to pay.
>
> In the latter case, the credit providers are required to hold a credit
> licence, but do not.
>
> The overall issue is not yet decided. It will return to the single judge
> for a decision based on the full court's interpretation of the law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whatever, anyone that uses a payday lender of any flavour needs their
head read!. (cignO btw, cigna is something else again.)

>
> Sylvia.