Each of the four High Court judges in the ANZ fees case wrote a separate opinion, and much of their reasoning centred on the law of penalties, with the scope of this law seemingly made less pro-consumer as it applies to many businesses charges.In her ruling in 2014, Justice Gordon of the Federal Court held that exception fees in connection with credit card accounts, referred to as late payment fees, were unenforceable as penalties.Although plaintiffs asserted that an array of other ANZ charges were also penalties, Gordon rejected their argument over those.ANZ appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court against Gordon's decision that the late payment fees were penalties, while the appellants appealed against her decision in relation to the other exception fees. The Full Court allowed ANZ's appeal, but dismissed the appellants' appeal. Justice Keane, in yesterday's High Court ruling, wrote that "to argue that the contractual purpose which characterised the late payment fee charged by ANZ was the punishment of its customers is fraught with difficulty once it is accepted that the bank's legitimate interests are not confined to the reimbursement of the expenses directly occasioned by the customer's default. "The maintenance or even enhancement of ANZ's revenue stream, for the purpose of making a profit, is one explanation of the late payment fee. "Indeed, it is the most obvious explanation because, generally speaking, it is the purpose which informs all the terms on which a bank makes its facilities available to its customers. And although interest payments are the primary source of reward to a bank for financial risks involved in the provision of financial accommodation to its customers, there is no legal reason why a bank's fees and charges may not serve the same purpose. "In short, the late payment fee is readily characterised by the purpose of ensuring that ANZ's revenues are maintained at the level of profitability required by its shareholders."The judge ruled that the bank's credit card customers, symbolised in the class action by lead applicant Mr Paciocco, effectively chose to risk the fees by the way they ran their affairs."There was no suggestion at all by the appellants that the exercise of that choice was forced on them by any circumstance beyond their control," Justice Keane wrote. "By choosing to incur the fees, Mr Paciocco made a rational decision to deploy his available funds to meet other claims on his resources. "There is no reason to regard Mr Paciocco's choice to incur the fee as other than a rational economic choice on his part."