Catchwords

CONSUMER CREDIT – CREDIT PROTECTION – FINANCE BROKERS AND CREDIT PROVIDERS – DISCIPLINARY ACTION – where appellants prohibited under s 23 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994 (Qld) from providing consumer credit – where appellants do not complain about prohibitions imposed – where learned trial judge found that appellants had provided credit unfairly and had repeatedly engaged in unjust conduct – where conduct involved extortionate interest rates and threats of unlawful conduct – where learned trial judge relied on this unjust conduct in making the prohibition orders – whether unjust conduct relevant to imposition of civil penalty

CONSUMER CREDIT – CREDIT PROTECTION – FINANCE BROKERS AND CREDIT PROVIDERS – UNJUST CONDUCT BY – where learned trial judge found that appellants had provided credit unfairly and had repeatedly engaged in unjust conduct – where civil penalties imposed under s 102(4) Consumer Credit Code (Qld) – where appellants contend that learned trial judge erred in taking into account the unjust conduct when imposing the civil penalties – where no challenge made to the categorisation of the appellants’ conduct as “unjust” – whether s 102(4) makes irrelevant to the imposition of a civil penalty the unjust conduct of the appellants

CONSUMER CREDIT – CREDIT PROTECTION – GENERAL – OPERATION OF CREDIT LEGISLATION – INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS – LOAN CONTRACT – where appellants loaned money for “business or investment purposes” – where appellants effectively forced clients into signing documents declaring such purposes – where appellants exploited a loophole in credit legislation – where client files demonstrate that professed purposes were false – where learned trial judge found that the appellants had repeatedly and systematically contravened key requirements of the Consumer Credit Code (Qld) – whether purpose of credit legislation is to regulate conduct of credit providers or to protect borrowers

STATUTES – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF STATUTES – PARTICULAR CLASSES OF STATUTE – PENAL – PUNISHMENT AND PENALTY – where appellants contend that the criminal standard of proof should have been used in imposing the civil penalty – where sections of the Consumer Credit Code (Qld) distinguish between the imposition of a civil penalty and prosecution for a criminal offence – where case authority recognises the existence of civil proceedings to enforce a penalty – whether criminal standard of proof ought to have been applied

STATUTES – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF STATUTES – PARTICULAR CLASSES OF STATUTE – PENAL – PUNISHMENT AND PENALTY – where appellants contend that the penalties imposed in toto were excessive – where learned trial judge imposed same penalty of $10,000 in respect of each client – where relevantly identical conduct found in each case – where same key provisions contravened in each case – whether total effect of the penalties imposed manifestly disproportionate to objectives of the Consumer Credit Code (Qld)