REAA CAC 10054 v Hume [2014] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 82 KB]
...In a further disciplinary decision against the defendant, he was found to have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct by Complaints Assessment Committee 10054 for failing to properly explain a risk of liability for double commission to clients. Mr Hume appealed to us. We confirmed the Committee’s finding and its penalty of a reprimand and fine of $3,000; Hume v REAA [2013] NZREADT 53. [22] In the present case, the defendant’s then employer, Mr Hocquard of Ray White Whanganui, gave evi...