One of Australia's largest debt collection firms is fighting allegations that it illegally operated in Victoria after being blacklisted by the state's consumer watchdog. The legal battle centres on whether scandal-plagued Panthera Finance technically violated state laws by pursuing hundreds of thousands of debts while supposedly banned from operating.
The Core Legal Argument
During proceedings at Melbourne Magistrates Court on Monday, legal counsel for Francom - which acquired Panthera Finance in December 2024 - presented their defence against charges brought by Consumer Affairs Victoria. The consumer watchdog launched legal action last year, alleging Panthera operated illegally in the state following a 2020 Federal Court ruling that found the company had unduly harassed three consumers.
Dan Star KC, representing Francom, argued that Panthera could not have been a 'prohibited person' as claimed by prosecutors because the company wasn't technically engaged in debt collection according to the legal definition. 'There is a particular definition; there are things that are on one side of the line, and things that are on the other side of the line,' Star told the court.
Technical Distinction in Debt Ownership
The case hinges on a technical interpretation of Section 3 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act, which defines a debt collector as someone who 'for remuneration or reward' collects or attempts to collect 'debts owed to another person'.
Francom's defence contends that because Panthera had acquired the debts it was pursuing, rather than collecting on behalf of third parties, it wasn't technically operating as a debt collector under this definition. 'We say that there is just a complete absence of any evidence of the defendant being a prohibited person,' Star argued, emphasising that when Panthera breached the act previously, it had done so regarding debts it owned itself.
However, counsel for Consumer Affairs Victoria, Oren Bigos KC, countered that the wording of the act was broad enough to encompass debts that 'are or were owed to another person'. He referenced witness evidence from the federal court case concerning Panthera pursuing debts individuals owed to utility companies including Origin, Telstra and AGL.
Scale of Operations and Pending Decision
Revelations emerged that between May 2022 and June 2024, Panthera attempted to recover more than 200,000 individual debts in Victoria by relying on an associated entity to maintain business operations in the state. The company now faces 15 breaches of the act related to consumer debt connected to energy retailer Momentum Energy.
Magistrate Michelle Hodgson has confirmed she will consider all submissions and make an order next Tuesday regarding whether the case will proceed to trial. This decision could have significant implications for how debt collection laws are interpreted and enforced across Australia's financial services sector.
