Insight,

Say hello to AFCA, your new EDR Scheme

AU | EN
Current site :    AU   |   EN
Australia
Belgium
China
China Hong Kong SAR
Germany
Italy
Japan
Singapore
Spain
UAE
United Kingdom
United States
Global

This article was written by Katherine Forrest and Mizu Ardra.

After a year of consultation, reforms to Australia's financial services external dispute resolution schemes have come into effect – these will apply to banking, credit, insurance, funds and superannuation complaints.

AFCA is a 'one stop shop' which replaces three existing external dispute resolution schemes:

  • Credit and Investments Ombudsman;
  • Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS); and
  • Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. 

In order to facilitate the transition of FOS to AFCA, the membership base, employees and assets and liabilities of FOS were transitioned to AFCA Ltd. The final AFCA Terms of Reference (to be known as 'The Rules') were released in September 2018.

A regulatory oversight regime for AFCA has also been established by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First – establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Act 2018 which came into force on 5 March 2018. This Act, amongst other things, amends the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by establishing an enhanced ASIC regulatory supervision regime for AFCA.

Transition from FOS to AFCA - What do you need to know?

Some of the key differences and similarities between AFCA and FOS are as follows:

  • Larger jurisdiction: AFCA will have jurisdiction over a larger volume of disputes as the monetary threshold for acceptable consumer credit claims has been increased from $500,000 under FOS to $1 million under AFCA. AFCA will also be able to award higher compensation amounts compared to FOS. 
  • Systemic Issues: Unlike the FOS scheme, under the proposed AFCA scheme, AFCA will have a broad directions power in respect of systemic issues to require the member firms to do or refrain from doing any act which AFCA considers necessary to achieve one or more specified objectives which include remedying loss suffered by the relevant complainant and preventing foreseeable loss. When dealing with systemic issues, it is also expected that AFCA and ASIC will engage in a 'two way' sharing of information. This is different to the position of systemic issues under FOS where ASIC was limited in what information it could provide to FOS.
  • Remediation: As part of its new powers, AFCA expects to be more involved in remediation – including setting up programs with financial institutions.
  • Appeal Rights: The position regarding appeal from decisions is not materially less favourable to the financial services providers under AFCA than FOS. AFCA has almost identical rules to FOS regarding appeals of decisions. Specifically:
  • There is no straightforward path to appeal a determination relating to an individual customer.
  • Like FOS, there is a procedure for bringing a test case on a particular matter if AFCA agrees to this and to satisfy certain conditions (for example, complaintants costs to be covered).
  • Courts have taken the view in the past in relation to FOS that other appeal rights are extremely limited.  However there are unlikely to be any administrative law remedies available as FOS is a voluntary EDR scheme and FOS's decisions are viewed as not of an administrative character.  It may be that there are better arguments for seeking this type of review going forward owing to the "one stop shop" nature of AFCA.
  • However unlike FOS, AFCA has a broad directions power in respect of systemic issues that goes beyond the customer making the complaint.  So the limited appeal rights potentially become more concerning in this context.





LATEST THINKING
Insight
On 2 August 2022, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 was passed (Aged Care Bill), introducing important regulatory changes to Australia’s aged care sector. The Bill makes numerous legislative amendments, including to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (Aged Care Act) and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (Cth) (Transitional Provisions Act), and responds to various recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) Final Report (Report). The Report identified the provision of substandard aged care services and perceived systemic failures in the aged care sector.[1]

08 August 2022

Insight
The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Insight
Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022