Credit Act, Re; Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, Re, [1995] QSC 309

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND o.s. No. 769 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 770 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No 771 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 772 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) -- 1 of 23 -- O.S. No. 773 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) o.s. No. 777 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 778 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 779 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) -- 2 of 23 -- O.S. No. 780 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 781 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 785 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - GN WILLIAMS J Judgment delivered 21/12/1995 CATCHWORDS BANKING - s. 87A Credit Act 1987 - whether minor error ought reasonably be excused - relevant approach considered. Counsel: S. Thompson for applicant ANZ Bank. Ms R Atkinson for respondent Registrar. Collins for personal respondents. Solicitors: Mallesons Stephen Jaques for applicant. Crown Solicitor for respondent Registrar. Paul O'Shea for personal respondents. Hearing date: 11 October 1995 -- 3 of 23 -- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND O.S. No. 769 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 770 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BP..NKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) o.s. No 771 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND B.ANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 772 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) -- 4 of 23 -- 2 O.S. No. 773 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 777 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEAL.A.ND BP1.NKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 778 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALA..ND BP...NKUTG GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) o.s. No. 779 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) -- 5 of 23 -- 3 O.S. No. 780 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) O.S. No. 781 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIJ'.. P.~D NEij,J ZEALJ\ND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) o.s. No. 785 of 1994 IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT ACT 1987 - and - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALP.~D BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - GN WILLIP..MS J Judgment delivered 21/12/1995 By originating summons in each of the matters referred to in the heading the applicant, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, sought declarations and other specific relief pursuant to the Credit Act 1987 with respect to various loan contracts to which the provisions of that Act applied. In particular the applicant sought a declaration that certain matters which allegedly constituted a contravention of the Act amounted to "minor errors" within s. 87A and "ought reasonably -- 6 of 23 -- 4 to be excused" thereunder. Further consequential relief was sought including an order that the borrowers under the contracts in question were liable to pay the whole of the credit charges specified therein. Consequent upon directions made by other members of the Court the matters initially came before me limited to the issue whether or not minor errors were involved. For reasons which I delivered on 19 April 1995 (supplemented by short oral reasons of 29 May 1995) I held that with respect to the applications now before me minor errors were involved. The relevant applications were then re-listed before me for determination of the questions whether or not the minor errors so found ought reasonably to be excused under s. 87A, and whether the borrowers were liable to pay the whole of the credit charges. I must say with due respect to those who were responsible for directing that the applications be dealt with in this way that I have not found the procedure at all satisfactory. In the long run there is no doubt that the procedure followed has significantly increased the hearing and disposal time (and I have no doubt has also significantly increased the cost of the proc.eedings). It has also made, in my view, the resolution of the issues more difficult. Ultimately I have come to the view that the statement in s. 87A(2) (b) "if the court is satisfied that all the contraventions or failures ... are minor errors and ought reasonably to be ezcused" refers to a total· or overall finding by the court. Rigidly separating that expression into two components has the tendency to divert one's attention from the critical issue raised by the statutory provision. That is -- 7 of 23 -- 5 not to say that the expression "ought reasonably to be excused" does not add anything to the concept of a "minor error" unlikely to disadvantage the debtor. Clearly if the "minor error" was the consequence of a deliberate disregard by the credit provider of the provisions of the legislation, relief would probably not be granted under s. 87A notwithstanding that in other circumstances a similar mistake may attract relief. In the first instance when considering whether the minor error ought reasonably be excused the court should direct its attention to the particular error, the circumstances in which it occurred, and its consequences. If having done that the court was minded to hold that the contravention ought reasonably be excused, it may become relevant to consider evidence as to the general compliance behaviour of the credit provider. But ordinarily some other failure to comply with the legislation would not have a decisive effect on the question whether or not the particular contravention under consideration ought reasonably be e:{cused. It is the contravention which is excused not the credit provider. That is in accord with the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in National Australia Bank Limited v. Director-General, Department of Queensland Emergency Services (unreported, appeals 247 and 248 of 1994, judgments delivered 30 May 1995 and 4 August 1995). In that regard reference can also be made to Walter Pugh Pty Ltd v. Commissioner for Consumer Affairs (1988) 13 NSW LR 420 at 429-30 and Re National Australia Bank Limited v. Various Respondents (unreported decision 21 July 1995 of the Chairman of the Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales). -- 8 of 23 -- 6 Before considering each of the relevant contraventions for purposes of the applications now before the court it is desirable that I say something about the extensive material filed relating to the applicant's procedures and its attempts to comply with the provisions of the legislation. It is true, as was submitted on behalf of the respondent Registrar, that the applicant is not a small credit provider; it is, as is well known, one of the largest banking institutions in Australia and it had, or ought to have had, ample resources to ensure a high level of compliance with the relevant legislation. But it must also be recognised that the larger the organisation the greater the chances of human error in carrying policies into effect. There are obvious difficulties in preventing any mistake due to human error when the organisation employs thousands of people spread out over a wide area. The material satisfies me that the vast majority of the contraventions in question were the result of oversight or error by individual officers of the applicant responsible for handling the particular loan contract. Very few errors (one being that relating to the "discharge amount") could be said to be a system error; but as will be pointed out later there is some basis for concluding that that error was strictly not of that kind. Upon the introduction of the legislation the applicant formed a Lending Procedures Section which was responsible for co- ordinating and implementing changes in the system of making personal loans in order to ensure compliance with its requirements. Part of that Section's responsibility was the drafting of appropriate forms, the preparation of an Instruction -- 9 of 23 -- 7 Manual, and the dissemination of circulars designed to keep staff informed of requirements. All of that work involved the taking of legal advice, predominantly from .in-house lawyers, and consultation with other credit providers and those responsible for administering the legislation. Though the legislation is colloquially "uniform", there are differences between the referred to as legislation as implemented in each of the States and the law came into force in different States on different dates. There have also been significant amendments. I will not refer to those here; some more detail is provided in my reasons of 19 April 1995. One has only to read the decisions of judges and tribunal members with respect to the statutes in order to conclude that the leg is la tion was not clearly drafted. Further, it was incredibly comprehensive and concentrated more heavily on form than substantive requirements. In many instances it was not sufficient that particular information be provided; if it was not provided in a particular form then there was a contravention of the statute notwithstanding that the borrower was provided with the relevant information. P.gainst that background it is not surprising that assiduous attempts to comply with the legislation failed. The 1991 amendments are a testimony to that. A good illustration of the difficulties faced by a credit provider in complying with the Act is afforded by the debate before me as to whether or not the applicant was in breach of cl. 1 of Schedule 4 because it did not specify separately the premiums for life insurance and consumer credit insurance. Counsel for the applicant argued, it seems to me correctly, that -- 10 of 23 -- 8 the final un-numbered paragraph of cl. 1 (b) applied in the circumstance and the stating of a composite premium complied with the Act. But the vigorous submissions on the point by counsel for the Registrar highlights the difficulties faced by a credit provider in these circumstances. It is not necessary for present purposes to make any more definite finding on the point. As the legislation changed, and as decisions on it clarified obligations, the applicant amended its forms. Throughout the relevant period the applicant changed its form on about eleven occasions in order to comply more adequately with the statutory requirements as interpreted. That of itself created problems. Though attempts were made to retrieve and destroy superseded forms, the use of outdated forms, particularly in country areas, has resulted in a number of the contraventions with which I am currently concerned. The material filed on behalf of the applicant also deals extensively with staff training and other steps taken to minimise human error. I have already referred to the Instruction Manual and circulars which were regularly used in order to update information available to employees. Over time most employees were provided with calculators programmed to ensure that all necessary detail was provided. In recent years a computerised form has been adopted, and that has largely removed the possibility of human error. Individual staff members have from time to time been required to attend courses and seminars. Credit Inspection Managers have been appointed and there is a Lending Support Centre to carry out checks and audits with a view to minimising contraventions. -- 11 of 23 -- 9 Notwithstanding all that counsel for the Registrar, and counsel for the personal respondents, vigorously submitted that the applicant's compliance behaviour was so lax that the minor errors in question ought not reasonably be excused. It was said that the number of errors involved demonstrated that there had been a total failure by the applicant to recognise its obligations under the legislation. Submissions were made along the lines that a task force should have been set up to analyse and report on systems and procedures to ensure a higher compliance rate. After considering all of those submissions I have come to the clear con cl us ion that over the years the applicant has conscientiously at tempted to comply in all respects with the provisions of the leg is la tion. I can find nothing in the evidence to justify a con cl us ion that any of the errors or contraventions were deliberate (in the sense they were intentionally made in blatant disregard of the statutory provisions), nor am I satisfied that the evidence discloses that any of the errors or contraventions were made with an improper intent. None of the instances of error with which I am concerned misled the borrower in any significant way. There was in general a mistake made as to the manner or form in which information was provided to the borrower. Further, the material satisfies me that over the years the applicant has expended a large amount of money in order to train staff who were involved in handling transactions of the type in question. Procedures have been put in place to minimise human error, but in a large organisation human error will always occur. -- 12 of 23 -- 10 None of that reasoning means that the applicant should not be criticised for the numerous contraventions of the Act which have occurred. Clearly, particularly with hindsight, more could have been done. The applicant has incurred significant cost in its attempts to comply with the Act, and the cpsts of these proceedings will be enormous. In that way it could be said the applicant has been punished for any laxity on its part. That is more so when it is appreciated that a new credit control regime is soon to be implemented. The applicant has filed affidavits dealing with particular con·tracts evidencing contraventions of the type in question. I have read all of them but I see no point in referring to the particular instances in any detail. That material merely provides the general background against which my discretion must be exercised. There are some other matters to which brief reference should be made befor~ consideration is directed to each specific application. Because of the operation of s. 44, where a loan contract not complying with s. 38 has been re-financed by the applicant under a new loan contract, the amount re-financed may (and probably will) includ~ amounts which as at the date of the new contract the debtor was not liable to pay. This was the subject of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the National Australia Bank cases referred to above. I have taken that reasoning into account in arriving at my conclusions with respect to the particular applications now before the court. -- 13 of 23 -- 11 It should also be noted that in its reasons of 30 May 1995 in the National Australian Bank case the Court.of Appeal observed that once it was decided that the minor error ought reasonably be excused it would make little sense to decline to make a determination that all credit charges should be paid by the borrower. I agree with that approach and have applied it in this case. I have already made some observations on the number of contraventions which have occurred. Counsel for the Registrar based a specific submission on those instances where there were multiple errors in the one loan agreement. In my reasons delivered 19 April 1995 I did say that where there were a multiplicity of errors in the one loan agreement that gave rise to a question whether or not they ought reasonably be excused. As a statement of general approach that is unobjectionable. But it does not mean that the mere existence of a number of minor errors, none of which was likely to disadvantage the borrower, creates a situation where the court should not in the exercise of its discretion excuse the contraventions. I have difficulty in seeing why a number of technical contraventions, not misleading the debtor in any way, ought generally to have a greater consequence than one such error. As will become obvious from later consideration of the specific errors, in none of the cases was the debtor misled by the error. It is largely because of that that I have concluded in this case that a multiplicity of errors in the one agreement is not conclusive. Finally I have to deal with the three particular respondents who were represented at the hearing by Mr Collins. Schedule 8 -- 14 of 23 -- 12 applies to the loan to Abrehardt which is dated 22 March 1991. That meant the applicant was relieved of any failure to disclose commission and there is no need to consider further excusal. The applicant was entitled to require insurance and the debtor received a copy of the policy. Nothing in Abrehardt's affidavit is relevant for present purposes. So far as Mumford is concerned the first contract is not affected by these applications and the second relates to the purchase of land and is therefore not a regulated contract. In those circumstances Mumford's affidavit is irrmaterial. The Harris loan contract is dated 19 December 1990 and Schedule 8 applies in relation to the name of the insurer and commissions. The only relevant errors are the failure to state a "discharge amount" and a re-financing error. I have taken into account Harris' affidavit in dealing with the issue of "discharge amount". It is against that background that I turn to deal with the individual errors. O.S 770 - Discharge Amount Until fairly recently the form used by the applicant did not contain specific provision for the insertion of the discharge amount. However, as I pointed out in my earlier reasons, in most, if not all, instances the debtor received a Loan Repayment Record form disclosing the consideration for the discharge of the liability of the debtor to the applicant under the earlier contract. It is only in those circumstances that I held there would be a minor error. It follows that in all instances relevant for present purposes, the debtor J.:new the discharge -- 15 of 23 -- 13 amount; there was a contravention of the statute simply because it was not stated in a form which complied with Clause 1 ( e) Schedule 4. I noted earlier that this was arguably not a system error; that was because there is evidence that the applicant's procedure prior to the coming into force of the Act was continued and the applicant on legal advice acted in the belief, albeit incorrectly, that continuation of the existing procedure would constitute compliance with the new legislation. In other words~ at least initially, this was more in the nature of a mistake of law rather than a mistake in designing the form. Because the debtor had all the information required pursuant to Clause l(e) of Schedule 4 at or before the time of-entering into the relevant loan contract the contravention was (as indicated difficult excused. in my earlier reasons) a minor error, and it is to see why such an error ought not reasonably be Certainly the bank has now taken steps in the computerised form to ensure that the discharge amount always appears. I have had particular regard in this conte¼t to what is said in the affidavits of Roberts and Graham. In all the circumstances I would declare that I am satisfied that the error ought reasonably be excused and I would further declare that debtors under all regulated contracts falling within this category are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. O.S. 771 - Total Amount Financed The situation here, as indicated in my earlier judgment, is that there was an omission to show separately the total amount -- 16 of 23 -- 14 being the aggregate of the amounts referred to in paragraphs l(a) to ( f) of Schedule 4. The document in question specified the amount advanced, each of the items specified in paragraphs (a) to (f) of Clause 1 of Schedule 4, and the total amount repayable; all that was omitted was the separate addition of the amounts referred to in (a) to ( f) of Clause 1 of Schedule 4. As I previously pointed out, the borrower knew the grand total (that is the amount which has to be repaid) and the principal amount advanced; in those circumstances the omission of a subtotal for charges particularised could hardly be said to disadvantage the debtor. This is an illustration of what I referred to above, namely the error being one of form rather than one of substance. In essence the borrower was told everything; the error was in not providing the information in the particular way required. Sampling and auditing have revealed this error in other States but it has been difficult to find in Queensland. When the In~truction Manual was followed the subtotal in question would always have been included. Again I am satisfied that in ~11 the circumstances there should be a declaration that this minor error ought reasonably be excused and a further declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by the minor error in question are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges on those contracts. O.S. 769 - Date of Signature The error involved here is the omission of the date on which the offer to enter into the contract was signed by the borrower. -- 17 of 23 -- 15 In my earlier reasons I pointed out that the date on which the signature was placed on the form by the borrower was something clearly within the knowledge of the borrower and therefore it could not be said that the borrower was significantly disadvantaged by it. In consequence I held it to be a minor error. More than 5% of Queensland contracts applicant's March 1994 audit contained this reviewed in the error. There was certainly a date on the forms placed there by an employee of the applicant immediately prior to the document being handed to the borrower for signature. That would not necessarily indicate the date on which the document was signed by the borrower, but it would be a clear approximation of that date. The applicant's procedure involved the borrower signing and dating documents with respect to insurance (either or both life insurance and consumer credit insurance). Clearly there would be a number of documents bearing a date on which the transaction was finalised and, for the reasons previously given, it could not be said that this error significantly (or in any way) disadvantaged the debtor. Where this error occurred it was almost invariaply the result of human error on the part of the applicant's employee responsible for finalising the transaction. In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that this minor error ought reasonably be excused and there should be a declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by this minor error are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. -- 18 of 23 -- 16 O.S. 772 - Name of Life Insurer The errors in question here fall into two categories; each I have previously held constituted a minor error in certain circumstances. Firstly, for a period of time the reference was to the life insurer by its former corporate name. As pointed out in my earlier reasons Schedule 8 operated to relieve the applicant of the consequences of such misdescription prior to 15 July 1991. Computer loan contracts were introduced in November 1992 and thereafter this error could not occur. I am now only concerned with the few, if any, instances between 15 July 1991 and November 1992 when an employee of the applicant inserted the original name of the life insurer and not its then correct registered name. On each relevant occasion the debtor was provided with full insurance documentation which included the correct name of the life insurer. It is clear in my view that in those circumstances the minor error ought reasonably be excused. Secondly, an error occurred here where the applicant's employee in manually filling out the form used some abbreviation or corruption of the name of the life insurer. But again, as noted above, on all relevant occasions the borrower was given full an complete insurance documentation which contained the correct name of the life insurer. This again appears to be human error, and perhaps it could be said to be human error of an understandable kind. Ordinary people in the community regularly refer to well known insurance companies by some abbreviation or corruption of their full and correct registered name. -- 19 of 23 -- 17 In the circumstances there will be a declaration that the minor errors relating to the name of the life insurer ought reasonably be excused and a further.declaration made that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by those minor errors are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. O.S. 773 - Name of Consumer Credit Insurer Again this error falls into two categories. Each I previously held constituted a minor error in certain circumstances. Firstly, there was on some occasio~s an omission to scate the name of the consumer credit insurer; only the name of che life insurer was inserted. Secondly, as with the life insurer, there were occasions when abbreviations or corruptions of the correct registered name were used. So far as the latter point is concerned the position is identical with that discussed with respect to the :ife insurer. As indicated in my earlier reasons the debtor was not in any way misled by the omission of the name of the consumer credit insurer from the form because, independe:1tly of the form, :he borrower was given full insurance documentation. At all times the applicant's Instruction Manual has contained a direction :hat the correct name of the consumer credit insurer should be inserted in the form. due to human error. will not occur. Where this has not occurred it has been Further, since computerisation this error -- 20 of 23 -- 18 Again I will make a declaration that this minor error ought reasonably be excused and there will be a further declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by those minor errors are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. O.S. 777 - Consumer Credit Insurance - By Whom Payable This is a derivative breach. Where there was a failure to state the name of the consumer credit insurer, there was in consequence a breach of s. 38 (1) (h) namely, a failure to state the name of the person by whom a commission was payable. This breach involves no additional act, omission or culpability on the part of the applicant. All relevant information was provided to the debtor either in the loan contract form or in the insurance documentation supplied at the time. In the circumstances there should be a declaration that this minor error ought reasonably be e:~cused and there will be a further declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by this minor error are liable to pay the whole of credit charges under those contracts. O.S. 781 - Life Insurance Commission - By Whom Payable This is another derivative breach; it follows from what was said in dealing with O.S. 772 that where there was a failure to fully and accurately state the name of the life insurer there was a consequential breach in failing to state the name of the person by whom a commission charge was payable. The position cannot be distinguished from that considered in dealing with O.S. 777. There will be a declaration that this minor error ought reasonably be e:{cused and a further declaration that debtors -- 21 of 23 -- 19 under all regulated contracts which are affected by those minor errors are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. O. S. 77 8 - Consumer Credit Insurance Commission - Is/ Is Not Payable Here I am concerned with the form used between 15 July 1991 and 20 August 1993 which contained provision for words to be struck out thereby indicating whether or not commission was payable with respect to consumer credit insurance. On some occasions no crossing out was made by the applicant's employee. I have held that to be a minor error when all relevant insurance documentation was provided to the borrower and that contained information as to whether or not a commission was payable. Again the error is one of form rather than substance. The direction to the applicant's employees was always clear and unambiguous and it was essentially through oversight that the appropriate deletion was not made. In all the circumstances there should be a declaration that this minor error ought reasonably be e;~cused and a further declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by this minor error are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. O.S. 780 - Life Insurance Commission - Is/Is Not Payable The position here is identical with that considered in O.S. 778; the only difference is that here one is concerned with commission on the life insurance policy. In the circumstances there should be a declaration that this minor error ought reasonably excused and there will be a further declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are -- 22 of 23 -- 20 affected by these minor errors are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. O.S. 779 - Life Insurance Commission - By Whom Payable This application raises identical issues with considered in O.S. 781, the only difference being slightly different form was in use at the relevant time. those that a This minor error ought reasonably be excused and there will be a further declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by these minor errors are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. O.S. 785 - Consumer Credit Insurance - By Whom Payable This deals with the same issue as was considered with respect to O.S. 777. A separate application has been bought because a slightly different form was in use at the relevant time. The position is indistinguishable. This minor error ought reasonably be e~cused and there will be a further declaration that debtors under all regulated contracts which are affected by those minor errors are liable to pay the whole of the credit charges under those contracts. -- 23 of 23 --