Holidaymakers recall tragedy at Coromandel beach, eight people rushed to hospital after crash overnight and why we shouldn’t be alarmed after Qantas issued a mayday call in the latest New Zealand Herald headlines. Video / NZ Herald
An experienced real estate agent was found to have acted recklessly when he hugged and kissed a prospective buyer during a home viewing, even though parts of the woman’s allegations were fabricated.
Agent Murray Alfred Bright took a client out to see a remote Northland house with an impressive view, and in the master bedroom, hugged the significantly smaller woman and pecked her on the cheek.
The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal says Bright had more than 20 years of experience and would have known his actions were inappropriate.
“While not disgraceful, there was a reckless indifference to the rules,” the tribunal said.
Bright and the woman - whose identity is protected - first met in July 2019 at the real estate agency, arranging to view two properties the following day, according to a decision made on November 8 and released this month.
On the journey in Bright’s ute, according to the woman, he said she had a bubbly personality and an infectious smile, which made her uncomfortable.
She said he asked her at one point:, “What would you do if I drove off and left you here by yourself?” which put her on edge.
At the entrance of the second property, she said Bright grabbed her shoulders with some force and told her not to come through.
The property was in a remote Northland location. Photo / NZME
During a tour of the house she accused Bright of suddenly “swooping in”, grabbing her in a “bear hug” and kissing her very quickly on the lips while they were in the master bedroom.
She claimed she pulled back but Bright pulled her back in and kissed her again at least three more times.
The woman said she was stunned, disturbed and felt very vulnerable - the property was in a remote location she didn’t know and there was no one else around.
Bright denied the allegations but accepted he gave her one hug, and it was consensual.
He said he did not touch her at the property entrance. He went into the house to turn on the lights and open the curtains so she could see the view.
According to his account, she was standing in the master bedroom when he first suggested she sit on the bed and “imagine waking up to the amazing view every morning”.
He said he sat at the other end of the bed to be at her eye level while she was talking about what she was going through at the time.
He told the tribunal he empathised and asked, “would you like a hug?”, not thinking of the protocol, and she indicated consent by opening her arms and leaning towards him.
In his account, he gave her a short peck on the cheek but his lips did not make contact, only their cheeks came together.
As they pulled away from each other, he said, their lips accidentally brushed because of the way their bodies were twisted.
The tribunal found Bright’s narrative from start to finish consistent and plausible, while the woman’s description of the bedroom incident was “a fabrication”.
“There are a number of acts, as described by the complainant, which are highly improbable and cumulatively they make for an implausible narrative,” tribunal chair David Plunkett and two members Garry Denley and Fiona Mathieson said in their decision.
They said if Bright had shocked or made the woman uncomfortable on the journey and before entering the house, she would not have shared very personal information with him. But she did because Bright could only have known such details from her.
Her description of the bedroom incident was extremely improbable, they said.
“[D]espite the disparity in size and being taken by surprise the first time, she would not have meekly allowed herself to be repeatedly drawn in for hugs and kisses. Even if she could not have broken free, she could have just put her face down in such a way that Mr Bright could not kiss her on the lips. She is ... shorter than he is, so he could not kiss her on the lips if she angled her head and hence face down.”
But the hug, peck, touching of cheeks and accidental brushing of lips were problematic on their own, the tribunal found. Bright initiated the physical contact when he could have shown empathy in other ways - asking if she was OK, whether she wanted a moment on her own, or offering a coffee on the way back to the office.
They were sitting on a bed in the master bedroom, with the “innuendo any physical touching might convey”.
The tribunal said Bright’s conduct was likely to bring the industry into disrepute, saying private space was critical in work and professional relationships.
“Members of the public would not find such physical contact acceptable in the context in which it occurred here, irrespective of the compassionate circumstances.”
Bright had earlier conceded through his lawyer that his conduct was unprofessional, calling it a “momentary lapse in judgment” when he asked for a hug and allowed their cheeks to touch.
Later, he retracted the concession after dismissing his lawyer and representing himself at the tribunal hearing in October 2022.
Bright was suspended and dismissed by his employer within a month of the incident in July 2019. He could not be reached for comment.
