Ex-ANZ CEO Shayne Elliott launches legal action against bank for cutting his bonus

Former ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott has launched legal action against the bank demanding it pay bonus incentives he had cancelled for his role in overseeing a horror run of regulatory fines and operating blunders.

Mr Elliott was forced to give up short and long term cash or shares incentives worth $13.5 million, after he retired from the CEO role in July 2025.

In a statement on Friday, the now retired banker said he had now been left with little choice, but to file a legal case against his former employer.

“As you would expect, having entered into a contract, my expectation is that those terms would be honoured,” Mr Elliott was quoted as saying by The Australian.

“I accept the need for accountability, which is why I voluntarily proposed to the Board that I would forgo my incentives in 2024”.

One former senior trader at ANZ said “this is getting farcical” in response to the news of Mr Elliott’s case.

On Friday morning, the bank put out a statement to justify its decision to strip Mr Elliott of his bonuses. Chairman Paul O’Sullivan also said the bank will defend its position and reject Mr Elliott’s claim to set up a sensational legal showdown.

“The Board has been considered and very deliberate in its assessment of remuneration outcomes,” Mr O’Sullivan said.

The statement also suggested the decision was in part as it had to meet regulatory obligations owed to banking regulator APRA.

“ANZ is required to design remuneration in a way that encourages prudent risk management as well as linking executive pay to performance and risk outcomes,” the statement said. “The Board is also required to consider these matters when deciding to release unvested equity on an annual basis.”

Conflict at ANZ

In total ANZ slashed $33.4 million in bonuses from current and former executives in a decision that Holly Kramer the bank’s chair of its People & Culture Committee previously said reflected the board’s desire to show accountability for its problems.

“The board carefully weighed up a range of factors in the deliberations, including the impacts of a number of matters,” Ms Kramer said of the board’s decision in November.

“These included a settlement with ASIC, the imposition of a Court Enforceable Undertaking with APRA, and the findings from independent reviews into root causes regarding non-financial risk management.”

On December 18, ANZ is due to hold its Annual General Meeting, when chairman Paul O’Sullivan will seek to avert a second consecutive shareholder vote against executive pay levels.

Mr Elliott’s legal action will come as a shock to the bank’s new chief executive, Nuno Matos, who has regularly outlined his desire to draw a line in the sand under historical problems as he sets about on a radical cost-cutting and transformation plan at the bank.

As part of the board’s bonus cull, Mr Matos also had a potential short-term bonus of $975,000 cancelled for his time as CEO during 2025, and said he believed this was the right example to set even if the historic failures did not happen under his leadership.

At the time Mr Matos added that staff must “absolutely respect” the board’s decision to cancel management’s financial windfalls to focus on a future that delivers for customers and shareholders.

However, Mr Elliott’s legal claim will now steal headlines back away from his successor’s desire to emphasise a new chapter at the bank.

“I will be seeking the earliest possible hearing of my claim before the court and am fully committed to see this process through,” Mr Elliott said in his statement.

“I have been left with no alternative other than to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking a declaration that the Bank has breached the contract that I had with it.”

One of the last times Mr Elliott was seen publicly was during the case of, Etienne Alexiou, a trader sacked by ANZ in 2015 for sending lewd messages on its internal systems.

Mr Elliott appeared as a witness to the unfair dismissal case in late October, 2025, but repeatedly told the court he could not remember details about his time as CEO, as it was so long in the past.