PLANNER UNDER INVESTIGATION

Financial firm sacks Toowoomba woman following audit

A TOOWOOMBA financial planner has had her contract terminated, pending potential investigation from a national watchdog, over concerns about her conduct with elderly clients.

A judgement handed down in the Supreme Court last week revealed Leanne Yvonne McDonald was sacked by AMP Financial Planning after an audit by the firm.

McDonald had an appeal against her employer’s decision thrown out by a Supreme Court judge last week after a review panel suggested the financial planner’s conducted warranted referral to ASIC.

‘‘ SHE DID INDEED CONTRAVENE THAT AGREEMENT IN SERIOUS RESPECTS. JUSTICE JAMES DOUGLAS

A TOOWOOMBA financial planner has had an appeal against her contract termination thrown out after the Supreme Court heard her conduct warranted referral to a national regulator.

An investigation by Leanne Yvonne McDonald’s former employer AMP Financial Planning found that she failed to give her clients advice in their best interests on six separate occasions and broke regulatory codes on a further 10 occasions.

The award winning planner had been authorised to represent AMP until this year, when it came to light through an internal audit that her advice to a number of clients may have breached statutory standards.

Some of the clients were elderly residents seeking advice regarding hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A Supreme Court judgement reveals McDonald’s alleged violations came after a review panel found her actions should have been reported to the sector’s watchdog; the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

A show-cause letter tendered to the court claimed clients were being charged thousands of dollars without receiving any advice.

“Please explain why the practice continues to charge ongoing advice fees without engaging clients regularly for further advice? This has (been) demonstrated in multiple instances where clients are paying ongoing advice fees,” the memo said.

Justice James Douglas agreed that McDonald had given advice against her client’s best interests to four different customers during the time of her agreement with AMP, and that the termination of her contract was justified.

“She did indeed contravene that agreement in serious respects, committing material breaches of it on a significant number of occasions,” he said.