ANZ Bank had "no idea" what its costs were for managing overdrawn accounts when it drafted consumer contracts for its banking products, the Federal Court was told yesterday.Tortuous legal arguments relating to contractual obligations and the so-called "penalties doctrine" dominated the fourth day of hearings in the ANZ exception fees test case being held in Melbourne.More than 43,000 ANZ customers are suing the bank for an estimated A$57 million, claiming they were charged extravagant fees for overdraws and late payments on their accounts.The likely success of the class action hinges on whether the plaintiffs can show that the bank levied exception fees as penalties and not just to recover costs.  For most of yesterday's hearing Justice Gordon interrogated counsel on the legal foundations of their submissions.The case law presented yesterday by counsel was often exotic and included judgements relating to the Spanish American War of 1898 and the terms of mobile phone contracts in California.Most of the questions from the bench were aimed at extracting explanations from counsel on how their legal arguments tallied with aspects of the High Court's landmark 2012 judgement in Andrews v ANZ that appears to have extended the jurisdiction of the penalties doctrine.In September last year, the High Court overturned a 2011 Federal Court decision that found the bank's exception fees were not capable of being shown to be penalties.Yesterday, Justice Gordon contemplated key aspects of the High Court's judgment, which found her 2011 decision contained an error of legal interpretation.Throughout the trial, Justice Gordon has commented on the High Court's decision and she conceded yesterday that she had struggled with it."Well, I think what - I don't know, but the only way - or one of the ways that I can understand it, and I struggle and I've made that abundantly clear on more than one occasion, is that, putting aside 23 for the moment, it's a bit like an advisory opinion," the judge told the court."I'm not being rude to the High Court, but they were asked a particular question, they said, and they answered that question, which was a question about capacity not finality. And once they've got a question of capacity, they then sort of say, 'By the way, there's a bit to add on in the end here'."ANZ's barrister, Alan Archibald, told the court that the High Court judgment had only considered the "limited question" of whether the fees were capable of being characterised as penalties."The High Court wasn't concerned at all with the particular elements of the fee, or the terms of the contract," he told the court."They were dealing with the question of principle thrown up."At the end of the morning session, Justice Gordon quizzed the bank's counsel on this assertion."I think the point where you and I are not meeting is that I think your argument, relying upon the fact that there is no primary and collateral stipulation, seems to - in relation to these very fees - is contrary to what the High Court said in