ANZ has been asked to be more precise about the facts it wants to rely on in the bank fees' class action set to be heard in early December.The request came from Justice Michelle Gordon in a directions hearing held in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday.The class action, involving 30,000 ANZ customers, is seeking the reimbursement of millions of dollars in exception fees that were levied as penalties for, among other things, accounts being overdrawn and customers exceeding their credit limits.Justice Gordon has previously ruled that some fees complained of were penalties. The High Court has since ruled that all 17 contested fees are penalty fees.The applicants claim that each of 17 exception fees was a penalty and each was out of all proportion, or unrelated, to the likely damage sustained by the bank, and that the imposition of the fees was unconscionable.The present phase of the proceedings will deal with the merit or cost justification for each fee.Justice Gordon was hearing arguments on several outstanding items, after the parties had a "very productive meeting" that settled several other issues.She was seeking clarity on the assumptions that underpin the facts presented in expert evidence tendered by ANZ, otherwise known as the Inglis Report. Will Inglis, a London-based partner in accounting firm Deloitte, has compiled a nine-volume report to explain the cost structures under the exception fees.Gordon asked counsel for ANZ, Michael O'Bryan, whether the bank could produce a submission for the court detailing the assumptions that underpin the expert's report.She also wanted ANZ to "identify with precision" the finding of facts that the bank wants the court to make.  She asked that the findings the bank wants be cross-referenced to the Inglis report and that this should be done "sooner rather than later".O'Bryan told the court ANZ still did not know what facts the case brought by the applicants would rest on."This case is unusual in that all the evidence is coming from the respondent and not a shred from the applicants."Michael Lee, counsel from lawyers Maurice Blackburn, representing the applicants in the class action, agreed."We will tender documents that the respondents will discover," Lee said.Justice Gordon also heard arguments on "discovery".She was told that, potentially, there would be many thousands of documents that could be considered relevant to the change in the terms used in ANZ's product description.Lee said the best place to start looking would be in the ANZ project manager's file."That sounds superficially attractive, but it would be practically unworkable," O'Bryan told the court.Justice Gordon saw fit to remind the parties of their obligations under discovery rules."If you are aware of a document that is adverse to your case, it should be presented," she said."That is the obligation placed on you and your instructors." Justice Gordon is keen to keep the matter on schedule, and asked both parties to let her know "well in advance" if there was a prospect of the matter "going off the rails".She also offered to help if there was a chance the matter