Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2022] FCA 491
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 491
File number(s): QUD 609 of 2018 Judgment of: GREENWOOD J Date of judgment: 4 May 2022 Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – consideration of the amount of a pecuniary penalty to be imposed upon a credit provider in relation to contraventions of ss 17(4), 17(5), 23(1) and 32A of the National Credit Code (the “Code”), Schedule 1 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (the “NCCP Act”) – consideration of the amount of a pecuniary penalty to be imposed upon a credit provider in relation to contraventions of ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
CONSUMER PROTECTION – consideration of the amount of pecuniary penalties to be imposed upon the credit provider having regard to contraventions in relation to a First Tranche of contracts comprising 142 credit contracts and a Second Tranche of contracts comprising 90 contracts
CONSUMER PROTECTION – consideration of the extent to which the two individual respondents as former directors of the credit provider were knowingly concerned in the credit provider’s contraventions of the Code and the ASIC Act – consideration of the 133 contraventions of the ASIC Act provisions in respect of which the two individual respondents were knowingly concerned (133 contracts)
CONSUMER PROTECTION – consideration of the decision of the High Court of Australia in Australian Building and Construction Commission v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13, 13 April 2022 – consideration of the principles governing civil penalties discussed by the majority (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ) – consideration of the observations of the majority at [10] of the reasons that the power to impose a pecuniary penalty conferred by s 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) “is not subject to constraints drawn from the criminal law” and “there is no place for a ‘notion of proportionality’ in the sense in which the Full Court used that term” (in Pattinson v ABCC [2020] FCAFC 177; 282 FCR 580)
CONSUMER PROTECTION – consideration of the period during which the individual respondents are to be restrained from engaging in activities involving credit activity
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), ss 12DA, 12DB(1)(a), (g)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 3, 64(2), 67
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (the “NCCP Act”), ss 6, 29, 64, Part 2‑2, Part 2‑3, Part 3‑2, Part 4‑1
National Credit Code, Schedule 1 to the NCCP Act, ss 3, 4, 5, 7‑13, 13A, 17(4)‑(5), 23(1), 32A, 32B, 111(1)‑(2), 113(1)‑(2), (4)‑(5), 116, 119(1)
Cases cited: Australian Building and Construction Commission v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Channic Pty Ltd (No 5) [2017] FCA 363
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 146; 244 ALR 300
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v EDirect Pty Ltd (in liq) (2012) 206 FCR 160
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fast Access Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 243
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v High Adventure Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 247
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Nonchalant Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] ATPR 42‑442
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rent 2 Own CarsAustralia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1312
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SIP Australia Pty Ltd [2003] ATPR 41‑937
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v The Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2015] FCA 93
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Thorn Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 704
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Westminster Retail Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1299
Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Hocking Stuart Richmond Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1184
Macquarie Credit Union Ltd v Director‑General of Fair Trading (1998) ASC 155‑014
Make It Mine Finance Pty Ltd, in the matter of Make It Mine Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1255
NW Frozen Foods v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285
Smith v The Queen (1991) 25 NSWLR 1
The Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482
Trade Practices Commission v Cook‑On Gas Products Pty Ltd [1985] ATPR 40‑560
Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1991] ATPR 41‑076
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection Number of paragraphs: 312 Date of last submission/s: 2 February 2021 Date of hearing: 19 May 2021 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S J Cleary with Mr S Seefeld Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr R G Gallo Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Niche Law
Table of Corrections Delete [26] and replace with: On 19 May 2021, the Court granted leave under s 500 of the Corporations Act to proceed against R2O in liquidation. However, R2O was deregistered pursuant to s 509(1) of the Corporations Act with effect from 30 September 2021 and by virtue of s 601AD of that Act, the company ceased to exist upon deregistration. In these reasons, I propose to identify the factors that inform a pecuniary penalty that would otherwise have been imposed on the company in liquidation both because it reflects the Court’s assessment of the character and severity of the conduct of R2O and it may assist in identifying the principles to be applied even though no pecuniary penalty can now been actually imposed on R2O as it has, by reason of the deregistration event, ceased to exist. Delete [106] and replace with: As mentioned, s 113(4) of the Code sets out nine factors the Court must take into account and s 12GBA(2) sets out three factors. In assessing the penalty to be imposed on R2O (for the assumed purpose described at [26] of these reasons), I have had regard to all of the s 113(4) and s 12GBA(2) factors respectively. Delete [185] and replace with: As to specific deterrence, R2O is in liquidation. Leave has been given to proceed against the company in liquidation. However, the company is now deregistered as from 30 September 2021 and no pecuniary penalty can be imposed on a company that has ceased to exist. Delete [186] and replace with: Specific deterrence is now irrelevant so far as R2O is concerned. Delete first sentence of [187] and replace with: However, it remains appropriate to assess a pecuniary penalty that R2O would have been ordered to pay had it remained in liquidation rather than having been deregistered (having regard to the assumption at [26] of these reasons), in respect of its contraventions in order to reflect the Court’s disapproval of R2O’s particular conduct having regard to the seriousness of the contraventions. Delete [189] and replace with: Even though the circumstances of the corporation are now that R2O is deregistered and specific deterrence is irrelevant, the Court ought to indicate the pecuniary penalty it would have imposed on the assumption at [26] so as to give full effect to the role of general deterrence having regard to the severity of the conduct. Delete the last sentence of [191] and replace with: ASIC contends that it may well be that a penalty required to achieve general deterrence will be greater than that required to specifically deter an entity in liquidation, Mr Green and Mr Roberts. Delete [195] and replace with:
1 As to R2O, ASIC contends that the “relative disregard” R2O had for its statutory obligations; the need for general deterrence; and the need to ensure that non‑compliance is not treated as a cost of doing business, are important considerations.
Delete [201] and replace with: ASIC emphasises that as to the last of these matters, the result is that R2O charged consumers $354,162.26 more than it was entitled to charge and thus, on the assumption at [26] of these reasons, the amount of any penalty that might have been imposed upon R2O ought to be greater than that amount. Delete [203] and replace with: The ultimate proposition put to the Court by ASIC is that in respect of R2O (had it not been deregistered), a total pecuniary penalty in the range of $600,000.00 to $1m would have been appropriate and so far as the Code contraventions are concerned, that penalty is made up of a contended range of $450,000.00 to $750,000.00. The penalty, referrable to the contraventions of the ASIC Act, is discussed below. However, as to R2O’s contraventions of the provisions of the Code, I am satisfied that an appropriate pecuniary penalty that would have been imposed on R2O in respect of the contraventions of each key requirement had it not been deregistered is $200,000.00 resulting in a pecuniary penalty of $600,000.00 for all contraventions of the three clusters of the three key requirements in issue, by the credit provider. Delete [210] and replace with: Having regard to the discussion above, ASIC contends that an appropriate range that would have been appropriate for a pecuniary penalty in relation to the contraventions of the ASIC Act is $150,000.00 to $250,000.00. Having regard to all of the matters described in these reasons and synthesising them into an assessment of penalty, I am satisfied that an appropriate pecuniary penalty for R2O’s contraventions of the ASIC Act would have been $175,000.00, excluding any element of specific deterrence. Delete [236] and replace with: Mr Green has made it plain that R2O is in liquidation, is not trading and has no capacity to pay any penalty, and now the company is deregistered. On the assumption mentioned earlier at [26] of these reasons, there are sound reasons in principle why there is utility in the Court indicating what would have been a reasonable and appropriate penalty to be imposed upon R2O had it simply been in liquidation rather than deregistered, at least so as to indicate the Court’s view of the relationship between the seriousness of the conduct and general deterrence. No pecuniary penalty can now be imposed on the credit provider by reason of its deregistration. Delete [308] and replace with: As to R2O, the entity has surrendered its ACL, went into liquidation and is now deregistered. Any question of an injunction does not now arise having regard to those circumstances. In [311] delete the sentence: An order for costs will be made against R2O in liquidation of and incidental to the proceedings. Delete [312] and replace with:
2 The formal orders to be made will simply be that ASIC submit orders within seven days for the consideration of the Court giving effect to these reasons. The indications of a pecuniary penalty that would have been imposed on R2O in liquidation had that been the prevailing position, are identified, as mentioned, simply for the purposes set out at [26] of these reasons, but of course, no pecuniary penalty can now actually be imposed on the deregistered entity. Otherwise, proposed orders are to be submitted by ASIC within seven days giving effect to these reasons.
ORDERS
QUD 609 of 2018 BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Applicant
AND: RENT 2 OWN CARS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 082 691 085)
First Respondent
TIMOTHY JAMES ROBERTS
Second Respondent
PAUL ANTHONY GREEN
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 MAY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant submit to the Court within seven days proposed orders giving effect to the reasons for judgment published today.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GREENWOOD J:
These proceedings are concerned with two matters.
The first concerns the extent to which civil pecuniary penalties are to be imposed upon each of the respondents to the principal proceeding. The second concerns the period of the restraint provided for by an injunction restraining the second and third respondents as contemplated by the observations in the “Primary Judgment” at [436](5) of the reasons published on 11 September 2020: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rent 2 Own CarsAustralia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1312.
These reasons ought to be read together with the extensive reasons published in the Primary Judgment, otherwise described as the “Liability Judgment”.
In these reasons, the defined terms adopted in the Primary Judgment are also used in these reasons.
For the sake of immediate convenience, the principal defined terms are these:
·Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (the “ASIC Act”);
·Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”);
·National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (the “NCCP Act”);
·National Credit Code (the “Code” or “National Credit Code”), Schedule 1 to the NCCP Act;
·Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ( the “Corporations Act”);
·Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (the “Evidence Act”);
·Federal Court of Australia (the “Court”);
·Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd (“R2O”);
·Australian Credit Licence (“ACL”);
·Timothy James Roberts (“Mr Roberts”);
·Paul Anthony Green (“Mr Green”);
·individual means a “non‑corporate person”.
In the primary judgment at [436], the Court summarised the relief to be granted in the proceedings in the following terms:
436 The following relief is to be granted, framed in appropriate terms:
(1)A declaration that R2O contravened ss 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the National Credit Code by engaging in particular conduct framed to take account of the findings in these reasons.
(2)A declaration that Mr Green and Mr Roberts were knowingly concerned in the contraventions by R2O of ss 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the Code framed according to the findings in these reasons.
(3)A declaration that R2O contravened ss 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g), framed according to the findings in these reasons.
(4)A declaration that Mr Green and Mr Roberts were knowingly concerned in the contraventions by R2O of the ASIC Act provisions in suit framed according to the findings in these reasons.
(5)Injunctions restraining R2O, Mr Green and Mr Roberts from, respectively, engaging in contraventions of ss 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the National Credit Code or being knowingly concerned in the contravention of any of those provisions of the Code by another. ASIC seeks an injunction restraining the respondents from engaging in credit activity, or being involved in a business engaged in a credit activity for a particular period as the Court determines appropriate. An injunction directed to this conduct is to be granted. However, the parties will be given an opportunity to be heard further on the question of what is an appropriate period for such a restraint.
(6)An injunction restraining R2O from engaging in further contraventions of ss 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act and an injunction restraining Mr Green and Mr Roberts from engaging in conduct constituting being knowingly concerned in contraventions of those provisions of the ASIC Act.
(7)As to the question of a pecuniary penalty, ASIC seeks an order against R2O for payment of a penalty in relation to its contraventions of ss 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the Code. ASIC also seeks a pecuniary penalty order in respect of R2O’s contraventions of ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act. ASIC also seeks a pecuniary penalty order against Mr Green and Mr Roberts in respect of their conduct of being knowingly concerned in R2O’s contraventions of ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
On 1 March 2021, the Court made orders giving formal expression to the above relief subject to the determination of the quantum of pecuniary penalties to be imposed upon the respondents and the terms of the proposed injunctions. For convenience, the operative parts of the orders (and definitions) and Tables 1 and 2 to the orders are attached to these reasons as Annexure A.
Those orders require the following explanation.
So far as relief against R2O is concerned, the Court made a declaration that between 1 March 2017 and 18 June 2018, R2O contravened s 32A of the Code by entering into credit contracts with an annual cost rate that exceeded 48% in respect of 140 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column A of Table 1. Table 1 is divided up into the 2017 credit contracts otherwise known as the “First Tranche” of contracts and the 2018 credit contracts otherwise described as the “Second Tranche”.
The Court also declared that, in that period, R2O contravened s 23(1) of the Code by entering into credit contracts that imposed a monetary liability on consumers in respect of an interest charge in contravention of s 32A of the Code in respect of the 140 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column B of Table 1.
The Court also declared that, in that period, R2O contravened s 17(4) of the Code by failing to disclose the annual percentage interest rate applicable to the credit contract in respect of 187 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column C of Table 1.
The Court also declared that, in that period, R2O contravened s 17(5) of the Code by failing to disclose to the consumer the method of calculation of the interest charges payable under the contract in respect of 232 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column D of Table 1.
The Court made three further declarations concerning R2O.
The Court declared that between 1 March 2017 and 18 June 2018, by charging an interest rate higher than the rate represented on the credit contract in relation to 177 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column E of Table 1, R2O contravened s 12DA(1) of the ASIC Act by engaging in conduct in relation to financial services that was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive; R2O contravened s 12DB(1)(a) of the ASIC Act by making false or misleading representations in connection with the supply or possible supply of financial services, that its services were of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; R2O contravened s 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act by making false or misleading representations in connection with the supply, or possible supply, of financial services with respect to the price of the services.
As to the relief granted against Mr Roberts, the Court declared that between 1 March 2017 and 18 June 2018, Mr Roberts was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by R2O of: s 32A of the Code in relation to 108 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column A of Table 2; s 23(1) of the Code in relation to 108 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column B of Table 2; s 17(4) of the Code in relation to 142 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column C of Table 2; s 17(5) of the Code in relation to 232 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column D of Table 2. Table 2 is also divided up into the 2017 credit contracts and the 2018 credit contracts.
Apart from those declarations, the Court also made a declaration that between 1 March 2017 and 6 September 2017, in relation to 133 credit contracts marked with an “X” in Column E of Table 2, Mr Roberts was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by R2O of ss 12DA(1), 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
In relation to Mr Green, the Court made declarations that he was knowingly concerned in R2O’s contraventions, in the terms described at [15] of these reasons by reference to Columns A, B, C and D of Table 2.
The Court also declared that Mr Green was knowingly concerned in R2O’s contraventions of ss 12DA(1), 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act as marked with an “X” in Column E of Table 2.
Tables 1 and 2 of Annexure A set out all of these matters in a consolidated summary form.
Particular restraining orders were made at Orders 7 to 12 inclusive of the orders made on 1 March 2021.
In the amended originating application, the relief claimed by ASIC so far as pecuniary penalties are concerned, is this.
As to R2O, an order pursuant to s 113(1) of the Code that R2O pay a pecuniary penalty in respect of the contraventions of ss 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the Code.
As to Mr Roberts, an order pursuant to s 12GBA(1)(e) of the ASIC Act that Mr Roberts pay a pecuniary penalty in respect of his involvement in the contraventions by R2O of ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
As to Mr Green, ASIC similarly claims pursuant to s 12GBA(1)(e) of the ASIC Act an order that Mr Green pay a pecuniary penalty in respect of his involvement in the contraventions by R2O of ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
On 25 March 2021, the company was placed into external administration with Mr Brendan Nixon of SM Solvency Accountants appointed as liquidator of R2O. On 19 April 2021, Ms Irma Schoch, a lawyer employed by ASIC, sent a letter to Mr Nixon seeking to determine whether Mr Nixon would give written consent to ASIC continuing with the civil penalty and injunction aspect of the proceeding. On 20 April 2021, Mr Nixon confirmed that he raised no objection to ASIC proceeding with this part of the proceeding.
On 19 May 2021, the Court granted leave under s 500 of the Corporations Act to proceed against R2O in liquidation. However, R2O was deregistered pursuant to s 509(1) of the Corporations Act with effect from 30 September 2021 and by virtue of s 601AD of that Act, the company ceased to exist upon deregistration. In these reasons, I propose to identify the factors that inform a pecuniary penalty that would otherwise have been imposed on the company in liquidation both because it reflects the Court’s assessment of the character and severity of the conduct of R2O and it may assist in identifying the principles to be applied even though no pecuniary penalty can now been actually imposed on R2O as it has, by reason of the deregistration event, ceased to exist.
The evidence relied upon by ASIC in this part of the proceeding is set out at paras 5, 6 and 7 of ASIC’s written submissions. Mr Roberts relies upon an affidavit sworn 3 December 2020. Mr Roberts is represented by Mr Gallo of counsel. Written submissions have been put on, on his behalf. Mr Green is self‑represented and has put on short written submissions.
Apart from the affidavit material recited at paras 5, 6 and 7 of ASIC’s written submissions, ASIC also seeks to rely upon the affidavit of Ms Irma Schoch sworn 27 April 2021. Mr Green objects to leave being given to rely on the affidavit. I will return to the basis upon which ASIC seeks to rely on written representations made by Mr Neil Gooch of Galbraith Loop, Erskine, Western Australia, contained in an email sent to Ms Schoch on 8 April 2021 and representations made by Mr Scott Lumsden to Ms Schoch in an email dated 6 April 2021 later in these reasons. ASIC seeks to rely upon these representations under s 64(2) of the Evidence Act, ASIC having given notice to the respondents in compliance with s 67 of that Act. R2O is, of course, and has always been, a party to these proceedings.
Before turning to those matters, Ms Schoch deposes to these matters supported by documents annexed to her affidavit. On 9 February 2021, Mr Green lodged with ASIC an application for the voluntary deregistration of R2O. In that application, Mr Green declared that R2O was not a party to any legal proceeding (para (f) of the declaration). Mr Green certified that matter to be true and complete (in the sense of accurate and without any omission). ASIC has deferred that application.
Ms Schoch also deposes to these matters.
On 1 July 2018, the franchisees of R2O ceased entering into credit contracts and commenced entering into car “hire agreements” with customers on behalf of a company called Auto Access Solutions Pty Ltd (“AASPL”) (formerly described as “R2O Enterprises Pty Ltd”). Under the hire agreements, consumers rent a used car by paying a fee or security bond and then paying a weekly rental fee either for a fixed term or in some cases an indefinite period. Mr Green has been a director of AASPL since 30 June 2018 and sole director since 20 December 2018. The sole shareholder in AASPL is PWMZ Pty Ltd (“PWMZ”) which holds two ordinary fully paid shares. Mr Green was a director of PWMZ between 3 February 2014 and 1 September 2018 and between 1 March 2019 and 15 October 2020. The sole director and shareholder of PWMZ is Mr Green’s wife, Ms Wendy Green.
As part of its investigations in relation to matters relevant to AASPL and matters touching upon the present proceedings, ASIC issued notices to 11 of the 14 franchisees between 5 November 2020 and 14 December 2020 seeking a list of customers that had made a payment since 1 August 2020 in relation to any credit contract entered into with R2O or a franchisee of R2O before 1 July 2018. As a result of exchanges between ASIC and the franchisees, documents were produced which reveal that four franchisees were continuing to collect monies from customers under R2O credit contracts entered into prior to 1 July 2018. Of those 151 customers, two were customers within the pleaded cohort of customers the subject of the civil penalty proceeding and the Liability Judgment and they are Mr Michael Keen who was continuing to make payments to an R2O franchisee in Adelaide South, and Mr Hosea Hinga, who was continuing to make repayments to an R2O franchisee at Mandurah, Erskine.
The solicitor for the R2O franchisee at Adelaide South is Mr Scott Lumsden, a partner of the firm Wallmans Lawyers in Adelaide. Mr Lumsden, on behalf of his client, provided certain information to Ms Schoch. Mr Neil Gooch is the principal of the R2O franchisee at Mandurah, Erskine, and he provided information to Ms Schoch.
As to Mr Lumsden, he sent an email to Ms Schoch on 6 April 2021 attaching a letter dated 5 April 2021 addressed to ASIC in which he provided the following information (and made the following statements) in relation to what he described as a credit contract between R2O and Michael Keen dated 9 June 2017:
Payment ceased on 10 December 2020 as the contract was paid out on this date. I asked Paul Green why ASIC was after [the] particular info [at Question 4 of ASIC’s email to Mr Lumsden: “Are repayments still being made under the R2O Credit Contracts? If not, please provide the date when repayments ceased and details as to why repayments ceased”] and he advised me that these are/were in a name [R2O] that is not registered to trade in credit (or something along those lines), to which I replied then why were we not made aware of this before now? He insinuated this was my fault for some reason. Several of the contracts in Q4 are still going because the customers are way behind with their payments.
As to Mr Gooch, he sent an email to Ms Schoch on 8 April 2021 responding to Ms Schoch’s questions set out in her email to him of 7 April 2021. He made these statements:
Mr Hinga’s contract was from 14 June 2018 and there were no variations. Mr Hinga’s contract wasn’t cancelled until 7/12/20 so falls into the period 1/9/20 – 20/11/20.
…
Prior to cancellation of Mr Hinga’s credit contract … repayments [were] being made [by] Paysmart … to the franchisee directly.
Question 6 put to Mr Gooch by Ms Schoch and his reply were in these terms:
6.What directions, if any, did [R2O] provide the franchisees about the continued collection of repayments from Mr Hinga in relation to his credit contract dated 14 June 2018:
a.following the commencement of ASIC’s investigation in 2017; and
b.prior to, at the time of, after, or otherwise in relation to, [R2O’s] surrender of its Australian Credit Licence on or about 3 March 2020.
None to my recollection.
ASIC served a notice dated 22 April 2021 on the respondents under s 67 of the Evidence Act. Section 67 provides that s 64(2) of that Act does not apply to evidence adduced by a party unless that party has given reasonable notice in writing to each other party of an intention to adduce the evidence. The notice must be given in accordance with the Regulations (s 67(2)) and state the matters required by s 67(3). Section 64(2) provides for an exception to the hearsay rule by providing that the rule does not apply to evidence of a representation given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made; or to a document (which, by reference to s 3 of the Evidence Act, Dictionary, is such as to include an email) so far as it contains the representation (or another representation to which it is necessary to refer in order to understand the representation), if, in either case, “it would cause expense or undue delay, or would not be reasonably practicable, to call the person who made the representation to give evidence”.
In this case, ASIC’s proposition is that it would have created delay and would have caused expense and would not have been “reasonably practicable” to make arrangements and incur the expense of bringing Mr Gooch from Western Australia and Mr Lumsden from South Australia, to Brisbane, to give oral evidence of the representations set out in the emails as quoted in these reasons. I accept that that is so and that the notice of 22 April 2021 meets the requirements of the Evidence Act and Regulations.
The affidavit of Ms Schoch of 27 April 2021 is admitted into evidence as to all matters to which she deposes. The letter from Mr Lumsden of 5 April 2021 (Annexure “ITS‑35”) and the email from Mr Gooch dated 8 April 2021 (“ITS‑40”) are both probative of the representations contained within the emails as quoted earlier.
The ultimate point of the focus upon the representations made by Mr Lumsden and Mr Gooch is this. On 3 February 2020, Mr Green on behalf of R2O, filed a request with ASIC for the cancellation of R2O’s ACL. The reason stated by Mr Green for the surrender or cancellation of R2O’s ACL was that R2O “does not trade in credit activities and has not traded in credit activities since 30 June 2018”. R2O’s ACL was cancelled on 4 March 2020 (that is, in the period between the trial of the issues on liability in this proceeding and pronouncement and publication of the Liability Judgment). However, the inquiries conducted by Ms Schoch and the questions asked by her of R2O franchisees revealed that payments were continuing to be received from R2O customers under credit contracts entered into with R2O. Relevantly for present purposes, of those contracts, two concerned credit contracts within the pleaded cohort of credit contracts the subject of these proceedings and the Liability Judgment, namely, the contracts with Mr Keen and Mr Hinga. In response to the emails from Ms Schoch (concerning Mr Keen and Mr Hinga), Mr Gooch and Mr Lumsden set out representations confirming that in each case, the credit contract had not been varied, assigned or refinanced; that no direction had been received from R2O concerning repayments from the credit contract customer following the surrender of R2O’s ACL and that the contracts thus remained as credit contracts between R2O and the customers as considered in the course of the proceedings. Repayments continued to be received from Mr Keen and Mr Hinga from 4 March 2020 (the date of cancellation of R2O’s ACL) until December 2020.
Thus, so far as Mr Keen and Mr Hinga are concerned, R2O continued to act as a credit provider under each credit contract and R2O continued to perform the obligations of a credit provider or exercise the rights of a credit provider in relation to each contract (one of the important rights being the right to receive the weekly payments under each contract) and thus R2O continued to engage in the statutory conception of “credit activity” for the purposes of the NCCP Act in the period 4 March 2020 to December 2020 concerning those two contracts notwithstanding the cancellation of R2O’s ACL on 4 March 2020. Section 29 of the NCCP Act prohibits a person from engaging in credit activity without holding a licence authorising the person to conduct that activity.
As earlier mentioned, Mr Green objects to the admission of the evidence of the representations which, if admitted, would be probative of the conduct just described between March 2020 and December 2020 concerning Mr Keen and Mr Hinga and thus probative of unlicensed credit activity. In his email response of 1 May 2021 to ASIC’s notice of 22 April 2021 under s 67 of the Evidence Act to adduce the evidence described earlier and to rely upon the affidavit of Ms Schoch of 27 April 2021 (served on 27 April 2021), Mr Green said this:
I do strongly object to the filing of the material for these reasons;
1.The material is very flawed in the fact that there are only 2 Franchisees that cannot recall being directed to not collect payments on R2O credit contracts after the licence was surrendered, if I could be bothered or thought it would make any outcome different, I could submit evidence and witnesses that would totally discredit this waffle, with one of these witnesses in Ms Schoch’s affidavit being documented as replying to my direction that he “did not care what ASIC laws say he was going to continue to collect because the money was owed to him” strange that he did not mention that!!
2.The main and most important objection is that ASIC is blatantly, disgustingly wasting resources and tax payer funds chasing nothing but a narcissistic motivated witch hunt just to hang a scalp on the wall or for some staffers corporate gain which ASIC is now famous for, knowing full well that the outcome will be NOTHING, there is very obviously some other motivation to this squandering.
3.There is no monetary outcome for ASIC … because it is very unlikely that any money will be raised or available to cover any imposed fines on the company or any of the respondents, the company is in liquidation.
…
It is correct to say that Mr Green seems to be suggesting that, consistent with the surrender (cancellation) of the ACL on 4 March 2020, the R2O franchisees were directed (by someone) to not collect payments on R2O credit contracts after the surrender of R2O’s ACL and that only two franchisees have been relied upon where collections occurred and in the case of those franchisees the contended difficulty is that they cannot recall the “direction”. Mr Green also says that he could “submit evidence” to “totally” contradict the concerns in Ms Schoch’s affidavit (and the emails), but was not bothered to do so as he considers doing so would make no difference in these proceedings.
It is unfortunate that Mr Green did not seek to demonstrate that franchisees of R2O had been directed by him or someone to not collect payments under the various credit contracts after the surrender of R2O’s ACL if that is what happened, and particularly if he caused it to happen.
However, Mr Green’s “main and most important objection” is the matter set out at point 2 above in the emphatic language it adopts, presumably reinforced by the observations at point 3. As to those matters, and Mr Green’s comments reflected in the quoted paragraphs, it is clear that as at 1 May 2021 (the date of his response), Mr Green had not recognised or come to grips with the fact that R2O engaged in the very large number of contraventions set out in Table 1 to the orders of 1 March 2021 (see Table 1, 232 credit contracts, Columns A to E, comprising 140 contraventions of s 32A; 140 contraventions of s 23(1); 187 contraventions of s 17(4); 232 contraventions of s 17(5); and 177 contraventions of ss 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g). Nor has Mr Green come to grips with having been “knowingly concerned” in a significant number of R2O’s contraventions: see Table 2 of Annexure A.
As to Mr Green’s comments about the state of R2O, its capacity to pay a pecuniary penalty and his lack of interest in the period of the restraint, the current state of R2O is due, no doubt, in large part to the circumstance that it engaged in the very large field of contraventions described in Table 1 to the orders of 1 March 2021 and that Mr Green and Mr Roberts were knowingly concerned in the field of contraventions described in Table 2 of the orders of 1 March 2021. In addition, all of those contraventions by R2O and the knowing concern of Mr Green and Mr Roberts in relevant contraventions as described in Table 2 to the orders of 1 March 2021 had a direct effect upon each consumer the subject of the credit contracts. If R2O, Mr Green and Mr Roberts are not capable of guiding the affairs of R2O according to law (especially in relation to such a large number of contracts), plainly enough, ASIC as the regulator, finds itself in a position where it must enforce the law.
The remarks of Mr Green set out at point 2 of his email as quoted at [42] of these reasons are absurd in the circumstances of this case.
As to this part of the proceeding on the question of penalty, the evidence demonstrates that of the 232 contracts in issue in the proceeding, R2O engaged in unlicensed credit activity between March 2020 and December 2020 concerning two of those contracts: Mr Keen and Mr Hinga. That circumstance is a relevant matter to consider in relation to the respondents when determining the pecuniary penalty to be imposed in respect of the conduct the subject of the orders of 1 March 2021.
As to the findings arising out of the Liability Judgment, counsel for Mr Roberts recognises that Mr Roberts did not contest the liability trial and undertook to abide by the findings in the Liability Judgment. To the extent that ASIC’s summary of those findings accurately puts the position, that summary is not in contest. I will examine the particular matters put by counsel for Mr Roberts, later in these reasons. Mr Green has a number of things to say about R2O’s conduct and his own conduct in his brief written submissions of 29 December 2020. To the extent that he challenges the findings of fact, the Liability Judgment has addressed those matters. I will address Mr Green’s observations later in these reasons. Accordingly, I will simply set out the unchallenged summary, recognising of course that these reasons and the summary ought to be read in conjunction with the Liability Judgment which extensively addresses the factual matters. I am satisfied that the summary is accurate.
The relevant summary is this.
Findings and contraventions
R2O provided credit to consumers through a hire‑purchase type of credit contract for the purchase of second‑hand motor vehicles. R2O held an ACL for that purpose and operated its business through a franchise network of motor dealers. At 17 July 2017 and 26 July 2018, there were 21 franchisees operating in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Each franchisee or a person employed by the franchisee, held a Motor Dealer Licence within the relevant State jurisdiction. For each franchisee, R2O authorised the franchisee entity or person, and/or one or more persons employed by the franchisee, to be a “credit representative” of R2O under s 64 of the NCCP Act enabling that person to engage in “credit activity” on behalf of R2O.
Between 1 July 2012 and 26 July 2018, R2O entered into 5,930 credit contracts and as at 19 April 2018, R2O had 2,239 credit contracts on foot. The proceeding concerns 232 contracts made between R2O and consumers. Those credit contracts fall into two tranches. The First Tranche comprises 142 contracts made between 1 March 2017 and 6 September 2017. The Second Tranche comprises 90 contracts made between 25 May 2018 and 18 June 2018. The Court considered a particular contract between R2O and a selected consumer in each of the two tranches on the accepted footing that those contracts were representative of each of the contracts within the two tranches respectively.
A consumer entering into a contract with R2O was required to make a first payment as part of the transaction and a number of regular payments thereafter with title typically passing upon the exercise of an option to acquire title in the used car on payment of the last repayment (although the actual mechanism for passing title may not necessarily have worked in that way). Accordingly, having regard to the period of the payments, interest was a component of the amount of each repayment: see Liability Judgment at [24].
The Court found that the credit contracts were subject to the requirements of the NCCP Act and the Code: Liability Judgment at [185]. Specifically, the contracts were goods leases with an option to purchase such that for the purposes of s 9 of the Code, they were regarded as contracts for the sale (of the relevant used car) by instalments, regulated by the Code.
In relation to the credit contracts, the Court observed that in order to distil the calculus of factors into a quantified regular repayment over the term of the contract, R2O provided the franchisees with a number of “price calculators” from 16 August 2016 in the form of a “Microsoft Excel” calculator for the purpose of determining the “weekly repayment” under the contract for a stated interest rate and contract term. Mr Green provided six such price calculators to the franchisees by email: 16 August 2016, 10 November 2016, 14 December 2016, 19 January 2017, 1 November 2017 and 11 April 2018, Liability Judgment at [24].
The circumstances in which R2O offered pricing guidance to franchisees (such as how the used cars were “priced” and how a “mark up” was to be determined, including the evolution of that practice and the creation and use of various versions of the “price calculators”) was considered extensively by the Court in the Liability Judgment at [287] to [366].
The Court also considered the chronology of the dealings between ASIC and R2O in which ASIC expressed concerns about R2O’s calculation of credit charges. The Court expressed these observations in the Liability Judgment:
(1)On 25 February 2017, Mr Green sent an email to Mr Wills providing a description of the formula used in his pricing calculator. The description of the formula shows that Mr Green understood that interest was being applied by R2O to the cash price before taking into account and subtracting the deposit.
(2)On 9 March 2017, a conference occurred between officers of ASIC, Mr Green, Mr Roberts and Mr Wills, by means of a teleconference. The minutes of the meeting record the serious concerns identified by ASIC in relation to the calculation of charges and whether the charges being imposed on the consumer entering into the credit contract were within the 48% rate cap. ASIC officers told Mr Green, Mr Roberts and Mr Wills in very clear terms that R2O was not calculating its charges correctly and that based on ASIC’s analysis, R2O was exceeding the 48% cap.
(3)On 16 March 2017, ASIC sent an email to Mr Wills seeking further information about R2O’s calculation of charges under the contracts. That email was subsequently sent to Mr Green. The email tells R2O, in relation to pricing calculations that the deposit was not being deducted from the cash price of the car and the calculation was not in conformity with s 32B of the Code.
(4)On 31 March 2017, ASIC sent an email to Mr Wills seeking answers to earlier questions put by ASIC and pursuing ASIC’s concern about two things. First, R2O’s disclosure requirements and second, the annual cost rate of R2O’s contracts. That email was also subsequently sent to Mr Green. The email expressly raises non‑compliance with s 17 of the Code and again informs R2O of ASIC’s view that the credit provider was exceeding the 48% cap. ASIC expressed concerns about the accuracy of R2O’s interest calculations.
(5)On 12 April 2017, ASIC sent an email to Mr Wills calling for a response to previous concerns ASIC had raised concerning R2O’s contracts exceeding the annual cost rate.
(6)On 31 May 2017, ASIC sent another email to Mr Wills, copied to Mr Green, observing that ASIC’s concerns had not been addressed. Those concerns involved questions raised earlier by ASIC about whether the formula R2O had adopted to calculate charges was in compliance with the Code and whether the methodology used to make calculations failed to comply with the Code.
At [193] of the Liability Judgment, the Court made this observation:
In the contracts in issue in these proceedings, the annual interest rate is central to the price of the provision by R2O of the credit service. The insertion of the interest rate into the price calculator is one of the essential features of the determination of the amount of the periodic repayment over the term. Thus, the interest rate is one of the essential factors that determines, over the life of the credit facility, the cost of the provision of credit, otherwise understood as the price of the service.
At [188] of the Liability Judgment, the Court accepted the expert evidence of Mr Michael Hill who undertook calculations in respect of the credit contracts in issue in the proceeding, including evidence about the correct annual cost rate and annual interest rate for those contracts. Mr Hill identified 140 instances of the annual cost rate in the credit contracts exceeding the 48% cap in contravention of s 32A of the Code: Liability Judgment at [104]; 177 instances of an annual interest rate charge being made or charged to the consumer greater than the rate recited in each case in the relevant consumer’s contract: Liability Judgment at [192]; and 187 instances where the annual interest rate actually charged to the consumer was different to the rate recited in the relevant consumer’s contract: Liability Judgment at [35].
In relation to Mr Green and Mr Roberts, the Court observed at [423] that they were “at the epicentre of the conduct of [the] business”. In this respect, they were the sole directors and shareholders of R2O at the time of the contravening conduct and were the only employees working in the company until September 2017: Liability Judgment at [420]; they were responsible for various versions of R2O’s “Operations Manual”, the May 2017 version of which recites that the policies and procedures set out therein were the “culmination of the Franchisor’s experience in the business over the past combined 50 years (that is, the combined business experience of Mr Green and Mr Roberts)”: Liability Judgment at [283]; and they provided the template credit contract and Operations Manual to the franchisees and provided instruction and training, including use of the calculator: Liability Judgment at [421] to [423].
In the Liability Judgment, the Court considered the extent to which Mr Green was at the centre of events involving the conduct of R2O’s operations. In the course of reaching a conclusion about that matter, the Court examined Mr Green’s evidence about those matters, the documents relevant to his engagement in the affairs of R2O and his evidence given in cross‑examination: Liability Judgment at [278]. In particular, the Court extensively considered Mr Green’s involvement in the creation and distribution of the price calculators and reached these conclusions.
First, the Court did not accept Mr Green’s evidence as to the moment in time when he first became aware of the problem with the contracts by reason of s 32A of the Code (that is, contracts exceeding the cap): Liability Judgment at [366] and [383].
Second, the Court did not accept that the failure of his calculator to properly calculate the annual cost rate came, as he said, as a huge surprise to him on 29 March 2018 (when he was examined by ASIC): Liability Judgment at [396].
Third, the Court rejected Mr Green’s evidence that he had checked 1,267 contracts and not found anything amiss in the way the relevant interest rates were calculated and inserted into those contracts: Liability Judgment at [396].
Fourth, the Court observed at [407] as follows:
The effective interest rate was significantly different. Mr Green knew there were serious concerns consistently being pressed by ASIC about this very matter. I have already explained the respects in which Mr Green approached the creation of his calculators and the formulas within them, with eyes tightly closed, notwithstanding that he had been put on notice of serious concerns by a regulator charged with the responsibility of highlighting the very matter now in question. Moreover, I am reinforced in my view that Mr Green was conscious of these difficulties by the manner in which he approached the checking of the contracts later in time and the issue about the 1,267 contracts. I am satisfied that Mr Green was obfuscating the position as to that matter, as undertaking the matter properly would have been likely to reveal his state of knowledge about non-compliance with the requirements of the Code on this issue.
As to Mr Roberts, the Court at [408] observed that he chose to leave the entire question [of the operation of the price calculators and the extent to which they produced outcomes that complied with the Code] to Mr Green.
As already mentioned, on 11 September 2020, the Court determined that ASIC was entitled to the relief summarised at [436] of the Liability Judgment involving declarations of contraventions of provisions of the NCCP Act and the ASIC Act by each of the respondents and directed ASIC to submit proposed declarations consistent with the Court’s reasons. Annexure A to these reasons sets out the operative content of the declarations and orders made on 1 March 2021.
The contraventions by R2O occurred from March 2017 to June 2018. Contraventions in relation to the First Tranche of contracts comprising 142 contracts occurred from March 2017 to August 2017 and in relation to the Second Tranche of contracts comprising 90 contracts, the contraventions occurred in May and June 2018.
All 232 contracts the subject of the proceedings included one or more contraventions of either or both of the Code and the ASIC Act as follows.
As to the 142 First Tranche contracts:
(1)All 142 contracts involve contraventions of s 17(4) of the Code, which provides that the credit contract contain the annual percentage rate. R2O contravened that section because the annual percentage rate contained in the contract was not the actual percentage rate applicable to that contract.
(2)All 142 contracts involve contraventions of s 17(5) of the Code, which provides that the credit contract contain the method of calculation of the interest charges payable under the contract and the frequency with which interest charges are to be debited under the contract. R2O’s contracts failed to include the method of calculation of the interest charges payable under the credit contract.
(3)108 contracts involve contraventions of s 32A of the Code which provides for a prohibition on a credit provider entering into a credit contract if the annual cost rate exceeds 48%. In the affected contracts, the annual cost rate exceeded 48%.
(4)108 contracts involve contraventions of s 23(1) of the Code which provides for a prohibition on a credit contract imposing a monetary liability on the debtor in respect of an interest charge under the contract that exceeds the annual cost rate of 48%. A contravention of s 23(1) necessarily flows immediately from a contravention of s 32A.
(5)133 contracts involve contraventions of s 12DA of the ASIC Act which provides for a prohibition against a person engaging in conduct in relation to financial services that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. R2O contravened s 12DA because the interest rate actually charged to the consumer was higher than the rate nominated in the credit contracts in question.
(6)133 contracts involve contraventions of s 12DB(1)(a) of the ASIC Act which contains a prohibition against a person making a false or misleading representation, in connection with the supply or possible supply of financial services, or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of financial services, that are services of a particular standard, quality, value or grade. R2O contravened this section because the interest rate actually charged to the consumer was higher than the rate nominated in the credit contracts in question.
(7)133 contracts involve contraventions of s 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act which contains a prohibition against a person making a false or misleading representation in relation to the provision of financial services with respect to the price of services. R2O contravened the section because the interest rate actually charged to the consumer was higher than the rate nominated in each of the credit contracts in question.
As to the 90 Second Tranche credit contracts, 45 contracts contravened s 17(4) of the Code; all 90 contracts contravened s 17(5) of the Code; 32 contracts contravened s 32A of the Code; 32 contracts contravened s 23(1) of the Code; 44 contracts contravened s 12DA of the ASIC Act; 44 contracts contravened s 12DB(1)(a) of the ASIC Act; and 44 contracts contravened s 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
The Court found that Mr Green and Mr Roberts were knowingly concerned in the following contraventions by R2O: all of the contraventions concerning the First Tranche contracts; all 90 contraventions of s 17(5) of the Code in relation to the Second Tranche contracts.
The statutory scheme in relation to the making of a penalty order under the Code and the ASIC Act
The following observations are concerned with the state of the statutory provisions as they were (not now) at the date of the contraventions in issue, the last of which was on 18 June 2018.
Part 6 of the National Credit Code addresses the topic of “Penalties for defaults of credit providers” and Division 1 of Part 6 addresses the topic of “Penalties for breach of key disclosure and other requirements”. Section 111(1) and (2) within Division 1 provide that for the purposes of the Division, a “key requirement” in connection with a “credit contract” and a “continuing credit contract” includes any one of the requirements contained in ss 17(4), 17(5), 23(1) and 32A(1) of the Code (among others).
Section 17(4) provides that the contract must contain the annual percentage rate and where that rate is determined by referring to a “reference rate” particular information must be set out in the contract (and other information). Section 17(5) requires the contract to set out the “method” of calculation of the interest charges. Section 23(1) is concerned with prohibitions upon imposing claims of monetary liabilities on a debtor, and s 32A(1) provides that a credit provider must not enter into a credit contract if the “annual cost rate” of the contract exceeds 48%.
Section 113(1) provides that on an application being made under the Division, the Court must declare whether or not the credit provider has contravened a key requirement of either the credit contract or the continuing credit contract.
Section 113(2) provides that the Court “may make an order, in accordance with this Division, requiring the credit provider to pay an amount as a penalty, if it is of the opinion that the credit provider has contravened a key requirement”.
The persons conferred with standing to apply for an order under Division 1 are a party to the credit contract or a guarantor or ASIC: s 112 of the Code.
Section 113(3) provides that in considering the imposition of a penalty, the Court “must have regard primarily” to the “prudential standing of any credit provider concerned” or a relevant subsidiary of such an entity, if either the credit provider or the relevant subsidiary “takes deposits” or is a “borrowing corporation” (within the meaning of the Corporations Act). The last sentence of s 113(3) qualifies that primary consideration in these terms: “However, the court is to have regard to that prudential standing only if the credit provider requests the court to do so”. R2O is not a “borrowing corporation” for the purposes of the Corporations Act. It is not clear whether R2O was at the relevant dates a corporation that “takes deposits” for the purposes of s 113(3) although it seems very unlikely. I propose to proceed on the footing that s 113(3) does not apply to R2O.
In any event, it should be noted that as to R2O’s “prudential standing”, R2O is a corporation in liquidation, does not trade and has surrendered its ACL. I am not satisfied that R2O has any favourable prudential standing.
Sections 113(4) and 113(5) of the Code are important provisions and they are in these terms:
(4)The court, in considering the imposition of a penalty, must have regard to the following:
(a)the conduct of the credit provider and debtor before and after the credit contract was entered into;
(b)whether the contravention was deliberate or otherwise;
(c)the loss or other detriment (if any) suffered by the debtor as a result of the contravention;
(d)when the credit provider first became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the contravention;
(e)any systems or procedures of the credit provider to prevent or identify contraventions;
(f)whether the contravention could have been prevented by the credit provider;
(g)any action taken by the credit provider to remedy the contravention or compensate the debtor or to prevent further contraventions;
(h)the time taken to make the application and the nature of the application;
(i)any other matter the court considers relevant.
(5)The court must, for the purposes of determining an application for an order under this Division or the amount of a penalty, treat a contravention of a key requirement that occurs merely because of another contravention of a key requirement as being a contravention of the same kind. If a provision referred to in section 111 contains several requirements, the court must treat contraventions of more than one of those requirements as a single contravention of the one key requirement for the purposes of determining the amount of a penalty.
In making an application under s 113 of the Code, s 119(1) provides that the subject matter of the application may concern one or more credit contracts or all or any class of credit contracts. Section 119(1) is in these terms:
119 General provisions relating to applications by credit providers or ASIC
(1) An application for an order by a credit provider or ASIC:
(a)may apply to any one or more credit contracts; and
(b)may apply to all or any class of credit contracts entered into by the credit provider during a specified period (for example, all credit contracts entered into during a specified period which are affected by a specified contravention).
In this case, ASIC’s application applies to all 232 credit contracts the subject of the proceedings as described in Table 1 to the orders of 1 March 2021 the subject of the Liability Judgment, but not all of the contracts entered into by R2O.
On an application by ASIC, the maximum theoretical penalty that may be imposed under s 113(2) (having regard to s 113(4), s 113(5) and s 119), is determined by s 116 which is in these terms:
116 Penalty if application made by a credit provider or ASIC
On application being made by a credit provider or ASIC for an order, the maximum penalty that may be imposed by the court for a contravention of a key requirement relating to a contract affected by the application is an amount calculated so that the total penalty for all contraventions of the requirement in Australia (as disclosed by the credit provider) does not exceed $500,000.
As to the maximum penalty, there are four sections of the Code containing key requirements the subject of the contraventions: see Table 1 to the 1 March 2021 orders (ss 17(4), 17(5), 23(1) and 32A(1)). ASIC takes the position that because the contraventions of s 23(1) “flowed inevitably” from contraventions of s 32A, the effect of s 113(5) is that the Court must treat the contraventions of s 23(1) as contraventions of the “same kind” as s 32A with the result that the maximum penalty is not determined as contraventions of four clusters of key requirements but three clusters and therefore the maximum penalty is $1.5m and not $2m for R2O’s contraventions of the Code.
A further consideration is that s 116 of the Code, as mentioned, contemplates that the maximum penalty for a contravention of a key requirement of a credit contract (affected by an application) is an amount calculated so that the “total penalty” for “all contraventions of the requirement in Australia” does not exceed $500,000. In this case, the application is concerned with a subset of such contracts being the particular 232 contracts in issue.
R2O also engaged in contraventions of ss 12DA(1), 12 DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act as a result of having misrepresented the actual interest rates applicable under the relevant contracts.
Section 12GBA(1)(a) of the ASIC Act provided at the relevant time that if satisfied that a person has contravened a provision of subdivision C (prohibitions on engaging in unconscionable conduct), a provision of subdivision D, (concerning consumer protection prohibitions), other than, however, s 12DA of that subdivision, or a provision of subdivision GC (substantiation notices), the Court may order the person to pay such pecuniary penalty (in respect of each act or omission) “as the Court determines to be appropriate”. In “determining the appropriate penalty, the Court must have regard to all relevant matters” including the matters at s 12GBA(2)(a)‑(c), namely:
(a)the nature and extent of the act or omission and of any loss or damage suffered as a result of the act or omission; and
(b)the circumstances in which the act or omission took place; and
(c)whether the person has previously been found by the Court in proceedings under this Subdivision to have engaged in any similar conduct.
The contravening conduct of R2O to which a penalty applies under s 12GBA(1)(a) concerned the contraventions of s 12DB(1)(a) and s 12DB(1)(g). Section 12GBA(3) provided, in the period of the contraventions of ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g), that the maximum number of penalty units for a body corporate was 10,000 penalty units and for an individual, 2000 penalty units. Pursuant to s 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a penalty unit for contracts entered into prior to 1 July 2017 was $180 and for contracts thereafter, $210. Thus, the maximum penalty for a contravention of either section by a corporation was $1.8m and for an individual $360,000 in the period to 1 July 2017, and for the period thereafter, the maximum penalty for a corporation was $2.1m and for an individual, $420,000.
In the present case, there were 126 First Tranche credit contracts entered into prior to 1 July 2017 and 16 First Tranche contracts entered into after 1 July 2017. All of the Second Tranche contracts (90 contracts) were entered into after 1 July 2017.
Therefore, the theoretical maximum penalty for a contravention by R2O of each of s 12DB(1)(a) and s 12DB(1)(g) in respect of 118 contraventions concerning contracts prior to 1 July 2017 is $212,400,000 (118 multiplied by $1.8m) and in relation to the 15 contraventions concerning First Tranche contracts entered into after 1 July 2017, the theoretical maximum penalty is $31,500,000 (15 multiplied by $2.1m). As to all of the Second Tranche contracts, there are 44 contraventions resulting in a maximum penalty of $92,400,000 (44 multiplied by $2.1m).
As to an individual, the maximum penalty for contraventions of each section concerning the First Tranche contracts entered into prior to 1 July 2017 is $48,780,000 made up of 118 contraventions of First Tranche contracts prior to 1 July 2017 (118 multiplied by $360,000, equalling $42.480m) and 15 First Tranche contracts after 1 July 2017 (15 multiplied by $420,000, equalling $6.300m): $48.780m in all.
As to the number of First Tranche contraventions of each section, see Table 1, Column E to the orders of 1 March 2021 cross‑referenced to the date of the contract. In the Liability Judgment, the Court determined that neither Mr Green nor Mr Roberts were knowingly concerned in R2O’s contraventions of either section in relation to the Second Tranche contracts and therefore it is not necessary to calculate the maximum penalty that would apply to an individual concerning those contracts.
The principles to be applied in determining the amount of the penalty to be imposed
The starting point is the NCCP Act and the Code. The Code is Schedule 1 to the NCCP Act. All of the following comments concern the provisions of the NCCP Act and the Code as they stood in the period of the contraventions and not otherwise, and to the extent that references are made in the present tense, they are references to provisions in the relevant period. Some references continue to be relevant to the legislative regime as it stands today.
The NCCP Act and the Code are beneficial statutory instruments which impose important protections for consumers dealing with “credit providers” engaging in “credit activity”. The protections include a requirement that a credit provider seeking to engage in credit activity and other related activities must hold an Australian credit licence: s 29, NCCP Act. The conditions governing applications for such a licence, what must be made out, and supervision of licences are extensive: Part 2‑2, NCCP Act. The definition of “credit activity” is broad: s 6. The obligations of licensees are extensive: Division 5, Part 2‑2. A licensee may authorise a person to act as the licensee’s “credit representative”: s 64. As to the extensive provisions governing the appointment of credit representatives and the corresponding obligations of licensees, see Part 2‑3 of the NCCP Act. As to the general rules governing licensees that apply to all credit providers under “credit contracts” see Part 3‑2 of Chapter 3 (which extensively addresses the topic of “Responsible lending conduct”, ss 111‑164); and s 4 of the Code. The remedies in relation to contraventions of the civil penalty provisions are contained in Part 4‑1 of the NCCP Act. All of the provisions of the NCCP Act leading up to Chapter 4 addressing remedies have the purpose of establishing norms or standards of conduct on the part of persons engaging in credit activity and related activities some of which might give rise to a credit contract or the “provision of credit” for the purposes of s 5 of the Code.
All remedial provisions are beneficial by their very nature.
The Code might fairly be described as highly prescriptive. Again, the Code prescribes irreducible minimum standards and norms of conduct to be discharged by those licensed entities seeking to engage in the provision of credit (s 3 and s 5 of the Code) and activities falling within ss 7 to 13 and 13A of the Code. Immediately relevant for present purposes, Part 2 of the Code concerns credit contracts and the requirements of ss 17(4), 17(5), 23(1) and 32A. Each of these provisions of Part 2 (and many other Part 2 provisions (eight others)) are “key requirements” in connection with a credit contract. They are beneficial protective standards for and of consumers in their dealings with credit providers.
Sections 12DA(1) and 12DB(1) of the ASIC Act (relevantly here, ss 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) containing prohibitions on engaging in trade or commerce in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial services) are well understood as establishing important beneficial and normative standards.
Turning to the Code specifically, it confers, as discussed, power on the Court to order a credit provider to pay an amount as a penalty concerning contraventions of a “key requirement” (liability having been established for the purposes of s 113(2)), having regard to the prudential standing factor (s 113(3), if engaged), and all of the nine factors at s 113(4) taking into account the maximum cap in s 116 and also the s 119 considerations.
Section 12GBA(1) of the ASIC Act confers power, once engaged, on the Court to order a person to pay such penalty “as the Court determines to be appropriate” having regard to the three factors at s 12GBA(2) and the maximum cap at s 12GBA(3).
The power to impose a pecuniary penalty under s 113(2) of the Code and s 12GBA(1) of the ASIC Act represent a power to impose sanctions upon a person for contraventions of the normative and beneficial standards imposed on the relevant person by the particular provisions establishing those norms and standards. The power must be exercised according to the statutory factors, the jurisprudence and the object and purpose of the provisions. In exercising the power according to those three considerations, the Court takes into account notions of “deterrence” both specifically in relation to the contravenor and generally as to others.
The general principles to be applied are these.
The statutory function of s 113(2) of the Code and s 12GBA(1) of the ASIC Act is to secure compliance with the relevant provisions of the regime. Importantly, “unlike criminal sentences, civil penalties are imposed primarily, if not solely, for the purpose of deterrence”: Australian Building and Construction Commission v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13 (“ABCC v Pattinson”), the majority (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ) at [15]. The “purpose” of a civil penalty “is primarily if not wholly protective in promoting the public interest in compliance” (ABCC v Pattinson, the majority at [15] affirming the statement of principle in The Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482 (“The Commonwealth v DFWBI”) by the majority, French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ at [55]). The “principle” and “probably the only” object of penalties imposed by s 113(2) of the Code and s 12GBA(1) of the ASIC Act (like s 76 of what was the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)) is “to attempt to put a price on contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravenor and by others who might be tempted to contravene” [emphasis added], the relevant provisions: Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1991] ATPR 41‑076 at 52,152 (“TPC v CSR”), French J, approved by the majority in The Commonwealth v DFWBI at [55] and approved by the majority in ABCC v Pattinson at [15].
Similarly, the majority in ABCC v Pattinson at [16] affirmed that the majority in The Commonwealth v DFWBI had established that “deterrence is the ‘principal and indeed the only object’ of the imposition of a civil penalty” and noted at [17] that the majority in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 at 659 [66] had accepted that a civil penalty “must be fixed with a view to ensuring that the penalty is not such as to be regarded by [the] offender or others as an acceptable cost of doing business”: see also Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25 at [151].
A further matter of importance is this. In considering the scope of the power under s 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to impose civil penalties in respect of contraventions of the civil remedy provisions of that Act, the majority in ABCC v Pattinson said this at [10] which needs to be kept in mind when considering the exercise of power under s 113(2) of the Code and s 12GBA(1) of the ASIC Act:
10 The Full Court’s critical error was that it was distracted by a concern, drawn from the criminal law, that a penalty must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct that constituted the contravention. The power conferred by s 546 of the Act is not subject to constraints drawn from the criminal law and there is no place for a “notion of proportionality”, in the sense in which the Full Court used that term, in a civil penalty regime. Further, and relatedly, their Honours were misled by the view that the Act required that the maximum penalty be reserved for only the most serious examples of the offending comprehended by s 349(1), and that this principle could prevent the court from imposing the maximum penalty even though a penalty in that amount might reasonably be considered to be necessary to deter future contraventions of a like kind. Nothing in the text, context or purpose of s 546 requires that the maximum penalty be reserved for the most serious examples of misconduct within s 349(1). What is required is that there be “some reasonable relationship between the theoretical maximum and the final penalty imposed”. That relationship is established where the maximum penalty does not exceed what is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of s 546: the deterrence of future contraventions of a like kind by the contravenor and by others.
[emphasis added; citations omitted]
As mentioned, s 113(4) of the Code sets out nine factors the Court must take into account and s 12GBA(2) sets out three factors. In assessing the penalty to be imposed on R2O (for the assumed purpose described at [26] of these reasons), I have had regard to all of the s 113(4) and s 12GBA(2) factors respectively.
In TPC v CSR, French J at 52,152 to 52,153, identified nine factors to be taken into account in determining the assessment of a penalty of appropriate deterrent value for the purposes of the TPA. In NW Frozen Foods v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 at 292‑295 (“NW Frozen Foods”), the Court noted three further matters to be taken into account. Of course, s 113(4) and s 12GBA(2) set out mandatory statutory factors to be taken into account. As to the TPC v CSR and NW Frozen Foods factors, the majority in ABCC v Pattinson at [19] reaffirmed the proposition that these factors are not a rigid catalogue of matters for attention or some sort of “legal checklist”. Nevertheless, the factors remain useful but in no sense are they determinative of the ultimate statutory question, but may help to inform the answer to that question. As to the role of deterrence, both specific and general, in circumstances where the contravening entity is in liquidation, see [184]‑[190] (and also the assumption at [26]) of these reasons.
The question for the Court under s 12GBA(1) is to determine an “appropriate” penalty “in the circumstances of the particular case” and under s 113(2), a discretion is conferred on the Court to “make an order (in accordance with Division 1) requiring a credit provider to pay an amount as a penalty” which also necessarily takes into account the circumstances of the particular case.
The application of the penalty factors to the circumstances of the case
Mr Roberts, by his counsel, has made submissions relevant to his own particular circumstances and I will turn to those matters later in these reasons. Mr Green challenges the gravity of the contraventions as contended for by ASIC and I will also turn to Mr Green’s submissions later in these reasons: see [49] of these reasons. I propose to now identify the contentions of ASIC in relation to the application of the penalty factors to the circumstances of the case.
The Code contraventions
The “key requirements” set out in s 17(4) and s 17(5) of the Code each impose separate requirements. Each piece of information serves a distinct purpose in enabling consumers to assess the value of the credit contract compared with other credit contracts so as to decide whether or not to enter into the credit contract at all: Make It Mine Finance Pty Ltd, in the matter of Make It Mine Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 1255 (“ASIC v Make It Mine”), Beach J at [38]. Importantly, s 17(4), as discussed, requires disclosure of the annual percentage rate or rates of interest and ensures that the consumer can easily and quickly compare different rates of interest available to them in the marketplace. Section 17(5) requires disclosure of the method and calculation of interest and its frequency of calculation and enables consumers to quickly and easily compare offerings in the marketplace and to be fully informed of the consequences of a decision on the part of the consumer to enter into a credit contract.
The statutory regime provides that it is a breach of the Code to fail to include any such key requirement in the credit contract: s 17. Each obligation plays its own important role in the statutory scheme and the Parliament has chosen to establish these features as separate key requirements.
Section 32A, as earlier mentioned, provides that a credit provider must not enter into a credit contract if the annual cost rate of the contract exceeds 48%. The effect of the section is to provide a regulatory maximum cap that can be charged as an annual cost rate under credit contracts. As described earlier, the provision is an important beneficial protective mechanism within the regime, particularly for consumers who may not be able to deconstruct the elements of a credit contract so as to identify features with the transparency contemplated by these “key requirements”.
Section 23(1)(c) of the Code provides that a credit contract (other than a small amount credit contract) must not impose a monetary liability on the debtor in respect of an interest charge under the contract exceeding the amount that may be charged consistently with the Code. In this case, there are 140 examples in which R2O has contravened s 32A by charging an annual cost rate greater than 48% which impose a relevant monetary liability on the consumer under the contract.
I now turn to the various statutory factors under the Code.
The conduct of R2O and the debtor before and after the credit contract was entered into: the s 113(4)(a) factor
This factor involves consideration of the seriousness with which the credit provider took its obligations under the Code and how quickly it acted to fix errors. ASIC’s contention is that R2O did not take its compliance with the Code seriously, until well after ASIC commenced its investigations and the many communications from ASIC raising concerns with Mr Green and Mr Roberts about R2O’s compliance with the requirements of the Code. The particular problems with the price calculators were fundamental. The consequences (including over‑charging consumers) were very serious. As a result, ASIC alerted R2O to the problems on numerous occasions in very clear terms. These matters were raised by ASIC in the meeting on 9 March 2017 and in emails from ASIC on 16 March 2017 and 31 March 2017.
ASIC contends that despite the gravity of the matters raised with R2O, Mr Green and Mr Roberts failed to promptly address those problems.
ASIC notes that R2O sought assistance about these matters from external advisers. They were Mr Wills of QED and Mr Latham of MinterEllison. However, ASIC contends that R2O’s engagement of those external advisers was “poorly managed”; that the chronology of the communications with those advisers demonstrates a “lack of urgency” in addressing ASIC’s concerns; and that the involvement of the external advisers was “only very belatedly useful” in producing a calculator that complied with the statutory requirements under the Code imposed on R2O by the key requirements in issue in the proceedings.
ASIC observes that Mr Wills had, in August 2017, provided R2O with a calculator that utilised a formula that complied with the statutory requirements. It was not until eight or nine months later in April or May 2018 that R2O issued its franchisees with a price calculator that used the statutory formula.
ASIC observes that the failure to promptly address those problems of the calculator when they were raised by ASIC meant that R2O continued to enter into credit contracts with consumers that contravened the Code, including by charging interest at a rate greater than the maximum of 48%. Some of the conduct of each of Mr Green and Mr Roberts in failing to address ASIC’s concerns have been described earlier in these reasons and their conduct is addressed extensively in the Liability Judgment.
ASIC also submits that even after R2O had sent its franchisees correct price calculators, some franchisees (R2O’s credit representatives) continued to write contracts in contravention of s 17(4), s 32A and s 23(1) of the Code by including incorrect annual interest rates in the credit contract.
The formal orders to be made will simply be that ASIC submit orders within seven days for the consideration of the Court giving effect to these reasons. The indications of a pecuniary penalty that would have been imposed on R2O in liquidation had that been the prevailing position, are identified, as mentioned, simply for the purposes set out at [26] of these reasons, but of course, no pecuniary penalty can now actually be imposed on the deregistered entity. Otherwise, proposed orders are to be submitted by ASIC within seven days giving effect to these reasons.
I certify that the preceding three hundred and twelve (312) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Greenwood. Associate:
Dated: 4 May 2022
ANNEXURE A
In this Order:
(a)“Table 1”, and “Table 2” mean the two tables attached to this order which contain the particulars of each of the credit contracts which are the subject of this proceeding.
(b)The “credit contracts” are those identified in Table 1 and Table 2 by reference to the name of the consumer or consumers with whom they were entered into and the date on which they were entered into.
(c)References to sections of the National Credit Act are references to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth).
(d)References to the National Credit Code are references to Schedule 1 to the National Credit Act.
(e)References to the ASIC Act are references to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
Declarations against Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd
1.Between 1 March 2017 and 18 June 2018, Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd contravened:
(a)s32A of the National Credit Code by entering into credit contracts with an annual cost rate that exceeded 48% in respect of the 140 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column A of Table 1;
(b)s23(1) of the National Credit Code by entering into credit contracts that imposed a monetary liability on consumers in respect of an interest charge in contravention of s32A of the National Credit Code in respect of the 140 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column B of Table 1;
(c)s17(4) of the National Credit Code by failing to disclose the annual percentage interest rate applicable to the credit contract in respect of the 187 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column C of Table 1; and
(d)s17(5) of the National Credit Code by failing to disclose to the consumer the method of calculation of the interest charges payable under the contract in respect of the 232 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column D of Table 1.
2.Between 1 March 2017 and 18 June 2018, by charging an interest rate higher that the rate represented on the credit contract, in relation to the 177 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column E of Table 1, Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd contravened:
(a)s12DA(1) of the ASIC Act by engaging in conduct in relation to financial services that was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive;
(b)s12DB(1)(a) of the ASIC Act by making false or misleading representations in connection with the supply or possible supply of financial services that its services were of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; and
(c)s12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act by making false or misleading representations in connection with the supply or possible supply of financial services with respect to the price of the services.
Declarations against Timothy James Roberts
3.Between 1 March 2017 and 18 June 2018, Timothy James Roberts was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd of:
(a)s32A of the National Credit Code in relation to the 108 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column A of Table 2;
(b)s23(1) of the National Credit Code in relation to the 108 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column B of Table 2;
(c)s17(4) of the National Credit Code in relation to the 142 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column C of Table 2; and
(d)s17(5) of the National Credit Code in relation to the 232 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column D of Table 2.
4.Between 1 March and 6 September 2017, in relation to the 133 credit contracts marked with an “X” in the column E of Table 2, Timothy James Roberts was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd of ss 12DA(1), 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
Declarations against Paul Anthony Green
5.Between 1 March 2017 and 18 June 2018, Paul Anthony Green was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd of:
(a)s32A of the National Credit Code in relation to the 108 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column A of Table 2;
(b)s23(1) of the National Credit Code in relation to the 108 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column B of Table 2;
(c)s17(4) of the National Credit Code in relation to the 142 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column C of Table 2; and
(d)s17(5) of the National Credit Code in relation to the 232 credit contracts marked with an “X” in column D of Table 2.
6.Between 1 March and 6 September 2017, in relation to the 133 credit contracts marked with an “X” in the column E of Table 2, Paul Anthony Green was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd of ss 12DA(1), 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
7.Pursuant to section 177(1) of the National Credit Act, Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd is restrained from further contraventions of sections 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the National Credit Code.
8.Pursuant to section 12GD(1) of the ASIC Act, Rent 2 Own Cars Australia Pty Ltd is restrained from further contraventions of sections 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
9.Pursuant to section 177(1) of the National Credit Act, Timothy James Roberts is restrained from being knowingly concerned in further contraventions of sections 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the National Credit Code.
10.Pursuant to section 12GD(1) of the ASIC Act, Timothy James Roberts is restrained from being knowingly concerned in further contraventions of sections 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
11.Pursuant to section 177(1) of the National Credit Act , Paul Anthony Green is restrained from being knowingly concerned in further contraventions of sections 32A, 23(1), 17(4) and 17(5) of the National Credit Code.
12.Pursuant to section 12GD(1) of the ASIC Act, Paul Anthony Green is restrained from being knowingly concerned in further contraventions of sections 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) and 12DB(1)(g) of the ASIC Act.
TABLE 1 - CONTRAVENTIONS BY RENT 2 OWN CARS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
First Tranche of Contracts (2017 Credit Contracts)
A B C D E No. Consumer Name Date of Contract s32A s23(1) s17(4) s17(5) ss12DA, DB(1)(a) & (g) 1 ABBOTT, Adele 7/06/2017 X X X X X 2 ABRAHAMS, Luke 10/06/2017 X X X X X 3 ABSOLOM, Karen 5/04/2017 X X X X X 4 ACTON, Brendan 3/07/2017 X X X X X 5 AERENGA, Tangi 9/06/2017 X X X X X 6 ANSON, Anastasia 9/06/2017 X X X X X 7 ARMSTRONG, Kate 10/05/2017 X X X X X 8 ASPINALL, Mika-Lee & MARTIN, Blair 12/05/2017 X X X X X 9 BALDACCINO, Shannon 21/04/2017 X X X X X 10 BANNERMAN, Kristine 6/06/2017 X X X X X 11 BARTLEY, Robert 5/04/2017 X X 12 BECK, Thomas 7/04/2017 X X X X X 13 BECKINGHAM, Kyle 15/06/2017 X X X X X 14 BERY, Tod 14/06/2017 X X X X X 15 BILLY, Gibson 14/06/2017 X X X 16 BINGE, Belinda 2/05/2017 X X X X X 17 BLACKLER, Warrick 20/04/2017 X X X X X 18 BORG, Andrew 3/05/2017 X X X X X 19 BRAND, Matthew 19/04/2017 X X X X X 20 BROOKES, Lisa 19/04/2017 X X X X X 21 BROWNE, Diane 8/05/2017 X X X X X 22 BUSHBY, Steven 16/05/2017 X X X X X 23 CANZLER, Rick 8/06/2017 X X X X X 24 CARBERRY, Anthony & Nicole 7/04/2017 X X X X X 25 CASTLEDINE, Phillip 10/04/2017 X X X X X 26 CHETWYND, Rhianna 29/05/2017 X X X 27 CHISENGALUMBWE, Ngoza 2/06/2017 X X X X X 28 COLE, Jason 20/05/2017 X X X X X 29 COLLIER, Matthew 17/05/2017 X X X X X 30 COLLINS, Sherrie 24/06/2017 X X X X X 31 COLLINS, Tamara 19/06/2017 X X X 32 CUNNINGHAM, Leanne 6/04/2017 X X X X X 33 DAVETANIVALU, Seruwaia 16/06/2017 X X X X X 34 DAVEY, Alan 2/06/2017 X X X 35 DIGBY, David 7/04/2017 X X X X X 36 DODD, Christopher 28/07/2017 X X X 37 DOUGLAS, Brooke 5/05/2017 X X X X X 38 DUDLEY, Kevin 23/06/2017 X X X X X 39 ETZLER, Kym 14/07/2017 X X X X X 40 GAMAGE, Ross 9/06/2017 X X X X X 41 GARROD, Matthew 23/05/2017 X X X X X 42 GATHERCOLE, Tiffany 5/05/2017 X X X X X 43 GIBSON, Trevor 12/05/2017 X X X X X 44 GOODMAN, Belinda 4/04/2017 X X X X X 45 HALL, Krystal 14/07/2017 X X X X X 46 HAMILTON, Graeme 8/04/2017 X X X X X 47 HAMPER, Sammy-Jo 5/07/2017 X X X X X 48 HANINGTON, Nicole 6/05/2017 X X 49 HARDMAN, Renee 1/06/2017 X X X 50 HAYWARD, William 5/04/2017 X X X X X 51 HICKLING, Clarissa 13/04/2017 X X X X X 52 HILL, Danielle 15/07/2017 X X 53 HOHEPA, Israel 5/04/2017 X X X X X 54 HOWARD, Andrew 16/07/2017 X X X X X 55 HUDSON, Miranda 14/07/2017 X X X X X 56 HUDSON, Wade 11/05/2017 X X X X X 57 HURLEY, David 1/06/2017 X X X X X 58 HUTCHINSON, Jaclyn 11/05/2017 X X 59 INALL, Kirsty 26/05/2017 X X X X X 60 IRWIN, Rikki 5/06/2017 X X X X X 61 JAGARA, Wesere 11/04/2017 X X X X X 62 JOHNSON, Pauline 8/06/2017 X X X 63 JONES, Katholine 9/06/2017 X X X 64 KAIN, Jarrod 2/06/2017 X X X 65 KEEN, Michael 9/06/2017 X X X 66 KENNEDY, Janeen 13/06/2017 X X X X X 67 KING, Khandisha 12/04/2017 X X X X X 68 KOSTINEK, Larree 5/06/2017 X X X X X 69 LATIMORE, Ashliegh 1/06/2017 X X X X X 70 LEINASARS, Lynda 1/03/2017 X X X X X 71 LITZOW, James 4/05/2017 X X X X X 72 LORD, Maureen 14/06/2017 X X X 73 LOWEB, Asheligh 12/05/2017 X X X X X 74 LUCAS, Angel 9/05/2017 X X X X X 75 LYNES, Samantha 15/05/2017 X X X X X 76 MACKIE, Tracey 23/06/2017 X X X X X 77 MAIDEN, Jodie 12/04/2017 X X X X X 78 MANNIX, Rachel 5/04/2017 X X X 79 MCCARTHY, Kristy 24/05/2017 X X X X X 80 MCDONNELL, Gordon 12/04/2017 X X X X X 81 MCGREGOR, Nicole 14/06/2017 X X X X X 82 MCINTYRE, Priscilla 6/07/2017 X X X X X 83 MCKENNA, Kimberlea 6/04/2017 X X X X X 84 MEALING, James 7/04/2017 X X X X X 85 MITCHELL, Kylie 27/04/2017 X X X X X 86 MOOKA, Talita 8/06/2017 X X X X X 87 MOTUGA, Katrina 4/05/2017 X X X 88 MUCHINDU, Matildah 14/07/2017 X X X X X 89 MYKYTYSCHYN, Belinda 15/05/2017 X X X X X 90 NAUDE, Lance 14/07/2017 X X X X X 91 NEEDHAM, Michael 12/06/2017 X X X X X 92 OMERHODZIC, Adnan 3/03/2017 X X X X X 93 O'RILEY, Kathryn 5/05/2017 X X X X X 94 PAEKAU, Rangitiaho 12/04/2017 X X X X X 95 PALMER, Andrew 4/05/2017 X X 96 PASCOE, Betty 12/06/2017 X X X 97 PAYNE, Missy 7/07/2017 X X X X X 98 PEEMUGGINA, Harold 26/06/2017 X X X X X 99 PIANTA, Tegan 29/06/2017 X X X X X 100 PICK, Sharon 27/04/2017 X X X X X 101 POLLARD, Anna 8/06/2017 X X X X X 102 POUTAMA, Moana 2/06/2017 X X 103 POWELL, Jason 12/04/2017 X X X X X 104 QARANIQIO, Salome 11/08/2017 X X X X X 105 RICHARDSON, James 18/05/2017 X X X X X 106 ROBERTSON, Sheree 8/05/2017 X X 107 ROBINSON, Antony 2/03/2017 X X X X X 108 ROSE, Marnie 14/06/2017 X X X 109 ROSSITER, Alina 14/07/2017 X X X X X 110 ROWLEY, Kylie 3/05/2017 X X X 111 RUEHE, Andrew 4/05/2017 X X X X X 112 RYAN, Bradley 26/05/2017 X X X 113 RYAN, Jefferson 19/06/2017 X X X X X 114 SCHMIDT, Lagise 4/04/2017 X X X 115 SCOTT, Vanessa 25/05/2017 X X X X X 116 SHEPPARD, Kylie 15/05/2017 X X X X X 117 SHIELL, Glenn 5/04/2017 X X X X X 118 SLAATS, Brett 9/05/2017 X X X X X 119 SNOW, Julie 27/06/2017 X X X 120 SOLOMAN, Rhonda 3/05/2017 X X X X X 121 STOCKHAM, Samantha 16/06/2017 X X X 122 TANGIMAMA, Teokotai 2/05/2017 X X X X X 123 TAYLOR, Eric 25/05/2017 X X X 124 TERVIT, Nicholas 13/04/2017 X X 125 THOMAS, Peter 27/04/2017 X X X X X 126 TOGO, Mellacon 19/05/2017 X X X X X 127 TOWERS, Tammy and Candy 12/04/2017 X X X 128 TURNER, Maria & Mervyn 4/05/2017 X X X X X 129 VALENTINE, Christopher 6/09/2017 X X X X X 130 WALLACE, Angela 5/04/2017 X X X X X 131 WARD, Thomas 16/05/2017 X X X X X 132 WATERMAN, Andrew 17/05/2017 X X X X X 133 WATSON, Mikayla 12/04/2017 X X 134 WEIR, Jason 11/04/2017 X X X X X 135 WELLS, Sonia 21/04/2017 X X X X X 136 WILLIAMSON, Amy 9/05/2017 X X X X X 137 WILSHIRE, Martin 9/06/2017 X X X X X 138 WILSON, David 21/07/2017 X X X 139 WOLFE, Beau 8/05/2017 X X X X X 140 WONG KEE, Esther 5/05/2017 X X X 141 WORTLEY, Rhonda 6/07/2017 X X X X X 142 WRIGHT, Daniel 4/05/2017 X X X Total 2017 Credit Contracts 108 108 142 142 133 Second Tranche of Contracts (2018 Credit Contracts)
A B C D E No. Consumer Name Date of Contract s32A s23(1) s17(4) s17(5) ss12DA, DB(1)(a) & (g) 1 ABRAHAM, Dorinda 5/06/2018 X X X X X 2 ABRAHAMS, Luke 6/06/2018 X X X X X 3 ANDREWS, Sarah 25/05/2018 X 4 ASLAN, Dilhan 8/06/2018 X X X X X 5 BARKER, Michelle 29/05/2018 X X X 6 BELL, Gary 30/05/2018 X 7 BELLAROSE, Justine 31/05/2018 X 8 BENTLEY, Crystal 7/06/2018 X X X X X 9 BEVAGE, Melinda 8/06/2018 X X X 10 BEVAGE, Melinda 8/06/2018 X X X X X 11 BEZERRA, Jose 30/05/2018 X X 12 BLIGH, Alexandria 8/06/2018 X X X X X 13 BRANNIGAN, Emma 30/05/2018 X 14 BUCHANAN, Raymond 30/05/2018 X 15 BURNS, Justin 2/06/2018 X X X 16 CROWLEY, Natasha 8/06/2018 X X X X X 17 CUNNINGHAM, Antashia 31/05/2018 X X X X X 18 DAVID, Lily 1/06/2018 X X X X X 19 DODD, Joanne 4/06/2018 X X X X X 20 EDGERTON, Clinton 28/05/2018 X 21 FAIFALE, Nelli-Anne 28/05/2018 X 22 FERGUSON, Monique 6/06/2018 X 23 FITZSIMMONS, Philip 8/06/2018 X X X X X 24 FRAIL, Trae 8/06/2018 X X X 25 FULTON, Lynette 6/06/2018 X X X X X 26 GARLETT, Grace 31/05/2018 X X X X X 27 GORDON, Krystal 18/06/2018 X 28 GOVINDARAJ, Suba 7/06/2018 X 29 GRATY, Kirsty 30/05/2018 X X X X X 30 GRIFFIN, Daniel 4/06/2018 X X X X X 31 GROVES, Brett 5/06/2018 X 32 HAMILTON, Dorothy 8/06/2018 X X X X X 33 HART, Rona 1/06/2018 X X X X X 34 HERN, Sarah 25/05/2018 X 35 HINGA, Hosea 14/06/2018 X 36 HINRICHS, Stefanie 29/05/2018 X 37 HOOKER, Shawn 28/05/2018 X X X X X 38 HUTCHINSON, Garry 29/05/2018 X X X X X 39 INGRAM, Penelope 29/05/2018 X 40 ISUA, Abraham 1/06/2018 X X X X X 41 JARVIS, Ty 30/05/2018 X 42 JOHNS, Tarrin 7/06/2018 X 43 JOHNSON, Leanne 8/06/2018 X X X X X 44 JOHNSON, Mikayla 28/05/2018 X 45 KARGER, Shaun 31/05/2018 X 46 Kerry, Felix 31/05/2018 X 47 LATA, Angeline 4/06/2018 X 48 LAUGINGOA, Tiulipe 4/06/2018 X 49 LEFROY, Kristy 7/06/2018 X X X X X 50 LOW, Bryce 30/05/2018 X 51 MASON, Trent 28/05/2018 X X X 52 MATTHEWS, John 5/06/2018 X 53 MATTHEWS, Leesa 8/06/2018 X 54 MCCULLOUGH, Simmone 28/05/2018 X 55 MCGRADY, Paige 30/05/2018 X 56 MCGREGOR, Shane 31/05/2018 X X X X X 57 MCMAHON, Peter 3/06/2018 X 58 MEAFOU, Bob 8/06/2018 X X X 59 MEECHAN, Amanda 6/06/2018 X X X X X 60 MERRITT, Richelle 14/06/2018 X 61 MILLER, Ryan 1/06/2018 X 62 MILLS, Jennifer 8/06/2018 X X X X X 63 MUNCHOW, Julie 5/06/2018 X 64 NUGENT, Shay 8/06/2018 X 65 O'NEILL, Sam 29/05/2018 X X X X X 66 OOSTENDORP, Matthew 4/06/2018 X 67 PAYNE, Cecil 29/05/2018 X 68 PEDDER, Rick 6/06/2018 X X X 69 PERRY, Andrew 31/05/2018 X X X 70 PETTIGREW, Matthew 5/06/2018 X X X X X 71 RILEY, Stuart 7/06/2018 X 72 RODGERS, Tara 1/06/2018 X 73 ROLLINS, Aaron 29/05/2018 X X X 74 SALEVAO, Peter 2/06/2018 X X X 75 SANDS, Emeley 5/06/2018 X 76 SITANILEI, Stanz 6/06/2018 X X X X X 77 STUDT, Karinna 31/05/2018 X X X X X 78 SU'A, Tanlelu 4/06/2018 X 79 TAFE, Emily 4/06/2018 X X X 80 TAVAO, Steve 6/06/2018 X X X X X 81 THOMAS, Ricky 6/06/2018 X 82 THOMPSON, Shantelle 30/05/2018 X 83 TUHEGA, Tracie 6/06/2018 X 84 TULIATU, Nerone 8/06/2018 X X X 85 UELESE, Sekolasitika 30/05/2018 X 86 UPHILL, Jody 7/06/2018 X 87 WHITE, Ashley 30/05/2018 X X X X X 88 WILSON, John 8/06/2018 X 89 WINNELL, Robert 29/05/2018 X 90 WOODBRIDGE, Juanita 5/06/2018 X X X X X Total 2018 Credit Contracts 32 32 45 90 44 TOTAL OF 2017 & 2018 CONTRACTS 140 140 187 232 177
TABLE 2 – CONTRAVENTIONS BY RENT 2 OWN CARS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD IN WHICH TIMOTHY JAMES ROBERTS AND PAUL ANTHONY GREEN WERE KNOWINGLY CONCERNED
First Tranche of Contracts (2017 Credit Contracts)
A B C D E No. Consumer Name Date of Contract s32A s23(1) s17(4) s17(5) ss12DA, DB(1)(a) & (g) 1 ABBOTT, Adele 7/06/2017 X X X X X 2 ABRAHAMS, Luke 10/06/2017 X X X X X 3 ABSOLOM, Karen 5/04/2017 X X X X X 4 ACTON, Brendan 3/07/2017 X X X X X 5 AERENGA, Tangi 9/06/2017 X X X X X 6 ANSON, Anastasia 9/06/2017 X X X X X 7 ARMSTRONG, Kate 10/05/2017 X X X X X 8 ASPINALL, Mika-Lee & MARTIN, Blair 12/05/2017 X X X X X 9 BALDACCINO, Shannon 21/04/2017 X X X X X 10 BANNERMAN, Kristine 6/06/2017 X X X X X 11 BARTLEY, Robert 5/04/2017 X X 12 BECK, Thomas 7/04/2017 X X X X X 13 BECKINGHAM, Kyle 15/06/2017 X X X X X 14 BERY, Tod 14/06/2017 X X X X X 15 BILLY, Gibson 14/06/2017 X X X 16 BINGE, Belinda 2/05/2017 X X X X X 17 BLACKLER, Warrick 20/04/2017 X X X X X 18 BORG, Andrew 3/05/2017 X X X X X 19 BRAND, Matthew 19/04/2017 X X X X X 20 BROOKES, Lisa 19/04/2017 X X X X X 21 BROWNE, Diane 8/05/2017 X X X X X 22 BUSHBY, Steven 16/05/2017 X X X X X 23 CANZLER, Rick 8/06/2017 X X X X X 24 CARBERRY, Anthony & Nicole 7/04/2017 X X X X X 25 CASTLEDINE, Phillip 10/04/2017 X X X X X 26 CHETWYND, Rhianna 29/05/2017 X X X 27 CHISENGALUMBWE, Ngoza 2/06/2017 X X X X X 28 COLE, Jason 20/05/2017 X X X X X 29 COLLIER, Matthew 17/05/2017 X X X X X 30 COLLINS, Sherrie 24/06/2017 X X X X X 31 COLLINS, Tamara 19/06/2017 X X X 32 CUNNINGHAM, Leanne 6/04/2017 X X X X X 33 DAVETANIVALU, Seruwaia 16/06/2017 X X X X X 34 DAVEY, Alan 2/06/2017 X X X 35 DIGBY, David 7/04/2017 X X X X X 36 DODD, Christopher 28/07/2017 X X X 37 DOUGLAS, Brooke 5/05/2017 X X X X X 38 DUDLEY, Kevin 23/06/2017 X X X X X 39 ETZLER, Kym 14/07/2017 X X X X X 40 GAMAGE, Ross 9/06/2017 X X X X X 41 GARROD, Matthew 23/05/2017 X X X X X 42 GATHERCOLE, Tiffany 5/05/2017 X X X X X 43 GIBSON, Trevor 12/05/2017 X X X X X 44 GOODMAN, Belinda 4/04/2017 X X X X X 45 HALL, Krystal 14/07/2017 X X X X X 46 HAMILTON, Graeme 8/04/2017 X X X X X 47 HAMPER, Sammy-Jo 5/07/2017 X X X X X 48 HANINGTON, Nicole 6/05/2017 X X 49 HARDMAN, Renee 1/06/2017 X X X 50 HAYWARD, William 5/04/2017 X X X X X 51 HICKLING, Clarissa 13/04/2017 X X X X X 52 HILL, Danielle 15/07/2017 X X 53 HOHEPA, Israel 5/04/2017 X X X X X 54 HOWARD, Andrew 16/07/2017 X X X X X 55 HUDSON, Miranda 14/07/2017 X X X X X 56 HUDSON, Wade 11/05/2017 X X X X X 57 HURLEY, David 1/06/2017 X X X X X 58 HUTCHINSON, Jaclyn 11/05/2017 X X 59 INALL, Kirsty 26/05/2017 X X X X X 60 IRWIN, Rikki 5/06/2017 X X X X X 61 JAGARA, Wesere 11/04/2017 X X X X X 62 JOHNSON, Pauline 8/06/2017 X X X 63 JONES, Katholine 9/06/2017 X X X 64 KAIN, Jarrod 2/06/2017 X X X 65 KEEN, Michael 9/06/2017 X X X 66 KENNEDY, Janeen 13/06/2017 X X X X X 67 KING, Khandisha 12/04/2017 X X X X X 68 KOSTINEK, Larree 5/06/2017 X X X X X 69 LATIMORE, Ashliegh 1/06/2017 X X X X X 70 LEINASARS, Lynda 1/03/2017 X X X X X 71 LITZOW, James 4/05/2017 X X X X X 72 LORD, Maureen 14/06/2017 X X X 73 LOWEB, Asheligh 12/05/2017 X X X X X 74 LUCAS, Angel 9/05/2017 X X X X X 75 LYNES, Samantha 15/05/2017 X X X X X 76 MACKIE, Tracey 23/06/2017 X X X X X 77 MAIDEN, Jodie 12/04/2017 X X X X X 78 MANNIX, Rachel 5/04/2017 X X X 79 MCCARTHY, Kristy 24/05/2017 X X X X X 80 MCDONNELL, Gordon 12/04/2017 X X X X X 81 MCGREGOR, Nicole 14/06/2017 X X X X X 82 MCINTYRE, Priscilla 6/07/2017 X X X X X 83 MCKENNA, Kimberlea 6/04/2017 X X X X X 84 MEALING, James 7/04/2017 X X X X X 85 MITCHELL, Kylie 27/04/2017 X X X X X 86 MOOKA, Talita 8/06/2017 X X X X X 87 MOTUGA, Katrina 4/05/2017 X X X 88 MUCHINDU, Matildah 14/07/2017 X X X X X 89 MYKYTYSCHYN, Belinda 15/05/2017 X X X X X 90 NAUDE, Lance 14/07/2017 X X X X X 91 NEEDHAM, Michael 12/06/2017 X X X X X 92 OMERHODZIC, Adnan 3/03/2017 X X X X X 93 O'RILEY, Kathryn 5/05/2017 X X X X X 94 PAEKAU, Rangitiaho 12/04/2017 X X X X X 95 PALMER, Andrew 4/05/2017 X X 96 PASCOE, Betty 12/06/2017 X X X 97 PAYNE, Missy 7/07/2017 X X X X X 98 PEEMUGGINA, Harold 26/06/2017 X X X X X 99 PIANTA, Tegan 29/06/2017 X X X X X 100 PICK, Sharon 27/04/2017 X X X X X 101 POLLARD, Anna 8/06/2017 X X X X X 102 POUTAMA, Moana 2/06/2017 X X 103 POWELL, Jason 12/04/2017 X X X X X 104 QARANIQIO, Salome 11/08/2017 X X X X X 105 RICHARDSON, James 18/05/2017 X X X X X 106 ROBERTSON, Sheree 8/05/2017 X X 107 ROBINSON, Antony 2/03/2017 X X X X X 108 ROSE, Marnie 14/06/2017 X X X 109 ROSSITER, Alina 14/07/2017 X X X X X 110 ROWLEY, Kylie 3/05/2017 X X X 111 RUEHE, Andrew 4/05/2017 X X X X X 112 RYAN, Bradley 26/05/2017 X X X 113 RYAN, Jefferson 19/06/2017 X X X X X 114 SCHMIDT, Lagise 4/04/2017 X X X 115 SCOTT, Vanessa 25/05/2017 X X X X X 116 SHEPPARD, Kylie 15/05/2017 X X X X X 117 SHIELL, Glenn 5/04/2017 X X X X X 118 SLAATS, Brett 9/05/2017 X X X X X 119 SNOW, Julie 27/06/2017 X X X 120 SOLOMAN, Rhonda 3/05/2017 X X X X X 121 STOCKHAM, Samantha 16/06/2017 X X X 122 TANGIMAMA, Teokotai 2/05/2017 X X X X X 123 TAYLOR, Eric 25/05/2017 X X X 124 TERVIT, Nicholas 13/04/2017 X X 125 THOMAS, Peter 27/04/2017 X X X X X 126 TOGO, Mellacon 19/05/2017 X X X X X 127 TOWERS, Tammy and Candy 12/04/2017 X X X 128 TURNER, Maria & Mervyn 4/05/2017 X X X X X 129 VALENTINE, Christopher 6/09/2017 X X X X X 130 WALLACE, Angela 5/04/2017 X X X X X 131 WARD, Thomas 16/05/2017 X X X X X 132 WATERMAN, Andrew 17/05/2017 X X X X X 133 WATSON, Mikayla 12/04/2017 X X 134 WEIR, Jason 11/04/2017 X X X X X 135 WELLS, Sonia 21/04/2017 X X X X X 136 WILLIAMSON, Amy 9/05/2017 X X X X X 137 WILSHIRE, Martin 9/06/2017 X X X X X 138 WILSON, David 21/07/2017 X X X 139 WOLFE, Beau 8/05/2017 X X X X X 140 WONG KEE, Esther 5/05/2017 X X X 141 WORTLEY, Rhonda 6/07/2017 X X X X X 142 WRIGHT, Daniel 4/05/2017 X X X Total 2017 Credit Contracts 108 108 142 142 133 Second Tranche of Contracts (2018 Credit Contracts)
A B C D E No. Consumer Name Date of Contract s32A s23(1) s17(4) s17(5) ss12DA, DB(1)(a) & (g) 1 ABRAHAM, Dorinda 5/06/2018 X 2 ABRAHAMS, Luke 6/06/2018 X 3 ANDREWS, Sarah 25/05/2018 X 4 ASLAN, Dilhan 8/06/2018 X 5 BARKER, Michelle 29/05/2018 X 6 BELL, Gary 30/05/2018 X 7 BELLAROSE, Justine 31/05/2018 X 8 BENTLEY, Crystal 7/06/2018 X 9 BEVAGE, Melinda 8/06/2018 X 10 BEVAGE, Melinda 8/06/2018 X 11 BEZERRA, Jose 30/05/2018 X 12 BLIGH, Alexandria 8/06/2018 X 13 BRANNIGAN, Emma 30/05/2018 X 14 BUCHANAN, Raymond 30/05/2018 X 15 BURNS, Justin 2/06/2018 X 16 CROWLEY, Natasha 8/06/2018 X 17 CUNNINGHAM, Antashia 31/05/2018 X 18 DAVID, Lily 1/06/2018 X 19 DODD, Joanne 4/06/2018 X 20 EDGERTON, Clinton 28/05/2018 X 21 FAIFALE, Nelli-Anne 28/05/2018 X 22 FERGUSON, Monique 6/06/2018 X 23 FITZSIMMONS, Philip 8/06/2018 X 24 FRAIL, Trae 8/06/2018 X 25 FULTON, Lynette 6/06/2018 X 26 GARLETT, Grace 31/05/2018 X 27 GORDON, Krystal 18/06/2018 X 28 GOVINDARAJ, Suba 7/06/2018 X 29 GRATY, Kirsty 30/05/2018 X 30 GRIFFIN, Daniel 4/06/2018 X 31 GROVES, Brett 5/06/2018 X 32 HAMILTON, Dorothy 8/06/2018 X 33 HART, Rona 1/06/2018 X 34 HERN, Sarah 25/05/2018 X 35 HINGA, Hosea 14/06/2018 X 36 HINRICHS, Stefanie 29/05/2018 X 37 HOOKER, Shawn 28/05/2018 X 38 HUTCHINSON, Garry 29/05/2018 X 39 INGRAM, Penelope 29/05/2018 X 40 ISUA, Abraham 1/06/2018 X 41 JARVIS, Ty 30/05/2018 X 42 JOHNS, Tarrin 7/06/2018 X 43 JOHNSON, Leanne 8/06/2018 X 44 JOHNSON, Mikayla 28/05/2018 X 45 KARGER, Shaun 31/05/2018 X 46 Kerry, Felix 31/05/2018 X 47 LATA, Angeline 4/06/2018 X 48 LAUGINGOA, Tiulipe 4/06/2018 X 49 LEFROY, Kristy 7/06/2018 X 50 LOW, Bryce 30/05/2018 X 51 MASON, Trent 28/05/2018 X 52 MATTHEWS, John 5/06/2018 X 53 MATTHEWS, Leesa 8/06/2018 X 54 MCCULLOUGH, Simmone 28/05/2018 X 55 MCGRADY, Paige 30/05/2018 X 56 MCGREGOR, Shane 31/05/2018 X 57 MCMAHON, Peter 3/06/2018 X 58 MEAFOU, Bob 8/06/2018 X 59 MEECHAN, Amanda 6/06/2018 X 60 MERRITT, Richelle 14/06/2018 X 61 MILLER, Ryan 1/06/2018 X 62 MILLS, Jennifer 8/06/2018 X 63 MUNCHOW, Julie 5/06/2018 X 64 NUGENT, Shay 8/06/2018 X 65 O'NEILL, Sam 29/05/2018 X 66 OOSTENDORP, Matthew 4/06/2018 X 67 PAYNE, Cecil 29/05/2018 X 68 PEDDER, Rick 6/06/2018 X 69 PERRY, Andrew 31/05/2018 X 70 PETTIGREW, Matthew 5/06/2018 X 71 RILEY, Stuart 7/06/2018 X 72 RODGERS, Tara 1/06/2018 X 73 ROLLINS, Aaron 29/05/2018 X 74 SALEVAO, Peter 2/06/2018 X 75 SANDS, Emeley 5/06/2018 X 76 SITANILEI, Stanz 6/06/2018 X 77 STUDT, Karinna 31/05/2018 X 78 SU'A, Tanlelu 4/06/2018 X 79 TAFE, Emily 4/06/2018 X 80 TAVAO, Steve 6/06/2018 X 81 THOMAS, Ricky 6/06/2018 X 82 THOMPSON, Shantelle 30/05/2018 X 83 TUHEGA, Tracie 6/06/2018 X 84 TULIATU, Nerone 8/06/2018 X 85 UELESE, Sekolasitika 30/05/2018 X 86 UPHILL, Jody 7/06/2018 X 87 WHITE, Ashley 30/05/2018 X 88 WILSON, John 8/06/2018 X 89 WINNELL, Robert 29/05/2018 X 90 WOODBRIDGE, Juanita 5/06/2018 X Total 2018 Credit Contracts 0 0 0 90 0 TOTAL OF 2017 & 2018 CONTRACTS 108 108 142 232 133
4
6
0