The rationale for ANZ's cuts to exception fees on a swathe of accounts in late 2009 is the subject of a last-minute skirmish between plaintiffs and the bank in a class action over penalty fees being heard in the Federal Court.Justin Gleeson, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, succeeded in presenting to the court four public documents issued by the bank and the Australian Bankers Association in 2008 and 2009, a period of public controversy and of industry initiatives around fee levels.ANZ was the last of the major banks to reduce key exception fees and abolish others on many accounts. ANZ's actions - announced in September 2009 and implemented in December 2009 - were taken, at least partly, in response to the actions of National Australia Bank.In mid-2009, NAB overcame years of inertia around the issue of penalty fees to abolish a range of fees on key accounts and reduce others. Westpac followed NAB's lead, while Commonwealth Bank and ANZ reduced the most common fees. In ANZ's case, the most common exception fees fell to $6, from $35, on overdraws and dishonours, while over-limit fees fell to $20 from $35.The legal merit of these fees, at the old and new levels, is at the centre of the class action initiated against ANZ by 34,000 customers.ANZ is arguing that exception fees were levied to recoup the cost of managing overdraws and credit limit breaches on customers' accounts.The significance of ANZ's 2009 media release and of ABA fact sheets issued since 2006 is that they make no reference to reductions in exception fees across the industry being in any way linked to lower costs of managing overdraws and credit limit breaches.In fact, according to the ABA, the dramatic reduction in exception fees across the industry from 2006 was the result of price competition and reflected the ""dynamic play of competitive market forces".This was in stark contrast to Westpac's explanation for cutting all of its exception fees from as much as $35 to $9 in August 2009. In a media release issued at that time, Westpac's former head of retail banking Peter Hanlon conceded that the reduced exception fees better reflected the cost of servicing overdrafts."The new structure is simple to understand and is fair value for the service provided," he said."It is appropriate that we continue to apply a fee for the service as there is a cost every time the bank honours a transaction on an overdrawn account or processes a bounced cheque."It also ensures we don't encourage customers to overdraw their accounts and pay additional interest rate charges."At yesterday's hearing, Alan Archibald, for ANZ, contested the plaintiffs' opportunity to present the ANZ and ABA media releases. These do not bear upon the contract terms that lie at the heart of the case, he said."What else could be put in? This could have been raised at the outset," he told the court.The plaintiffs may need the political background to ANZ's revised 2009 fee schedule to bolster a complicated legal argument around the