[2023] NZHC 353 "Fraud Unravels Everything": Highmark Homes Ltd v. Watkins Mike Ross Blog update
Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd: Facts for Mike Ross
"No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels eve
rything." > — Lord Denning, Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956]
The Takhar Principle: A Supreme Court Mandate
On 20 March 2019, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released a
The applicant, Nicola Watkins, cited this
1. The Jurisdiction Hijack: Section 161 ERA 2000
The litigation was strategically initiated by Highmark Homes Ltd (HHL) in the Disputes Tribunal rather than the Employment Relations Au
The Statutory Breach: Under
The Refusal to Stay: On
2. The Perjury Timeline: Crimes Act 1961 - 108 Perjury defined
This timeline shows the actual true facts from Watkins that are in sworn affidavit submissions and were presented to the NZ Court, against the sworn statements by Highmark Homes used to manufacture a finding against Watkins while simultaneously burying the self litigant in a swamp of Intense Use of Legal Jargon/Legalese, Procedural Defaulting, Objecting to Evidence/Witnesses and various confusion tactics by Highmark Home's lawyers.
The Law on Misleading Justice
False testimonies are an act of Perjury when a company knowingly manufactures falsehoods and presents them through lawyer submissions to the Court. It is widely recognized that a significant power imbalance exists when a self-represented litigant faces a lawyer.
The court system is structured for lawyers, making the process inherently difficult for individuals, a situation that experienced lawyers can leverage to "control the flow" of the case. In the case of Watkins vs Highmark and Highmark v. Watkins a total of 6 law firms were used to ensure the self litigant's sworn evidence and submissions were disregarded over their own expertly presented submissions including constant citing of "the rules" and Watkins lack of legal knowledge as the basis of having Watkins vs Highmark case thrown out.
Although a high bar is set for proving perjury in NZ and NZ Police have taken the opportunity to halt their investigation by sending the case back to where it began in Tauranga only to have it binned, in the Watkins vs Highmark Homes case the sworn evidence is not difficult to understand and clearly demonstrates in emails, building files and text messages exactly what happened. The NZ Court Judges who refused to read have made a mockery of the law and brought their Judiciary into disrepute by favouring optics and professional connections over Justice.
This blog bridges the gap between what is now publicly available online and the truth which publications by the Judiciary and reposted in the Mike Ross Blog create a false and unfair narrative about Watkins and no search result impact on Highmark Homes or the public image they portray of a fine upstanding family building company. Mike Ross Blog is an enigma, has a fake bio based on a stolen identify of a NZ Based Professional and author Michael J Ross 1990 author of books on Company Law.
Publishing the true facts online and the reason this is important is that Watkins has been not only defamed and harrassed for 9 years by Highmark, she is now permanently digitally scarred and this information is not just NZ. What Highmark Homes and the NZ Judiciary negligence has done is a world wide stain on her name and her mana:
- October 2017 (The Trigger): The main conflict began when Watkins raised concerns about pornographic spam on the company server. Over the weekend of 14–15 October, while working from home, the Directors sent an aggressive stream of emails. Highmark Homes used the weekend to stand her down, later claiming "concern for her wellbeing" in the ERA, while privately filing a Police Report on Sunday at 12:00 PM alleging "illegal access to a computer." This report was only discovered in 2020 via an OIA request, proving their claims of "genuine concern" to the ERA were a fabrication. The ERA submissions were also directly contradicting their original statements made and which the Disputes Tribunal elaborated on when writing her personal opinion in the Decision endorsed by District Court.
- 16 September 2020 (The Hunt Affidavits): To secure the District Court appeal, Robert and Ryan Hunt filed sworn affidavits claiming Watkins had deleted 6,000 emails. These claims failed to reveal that Acre PC (the IT provider) was performing routine maintenance deletions of files and email .pst files and spam backed up on the server under a monthly contract while the Highmark Homes internal office discussion was raging about the pornographic material that was infiltrating the company and the complaints by licencees that "good" emails from building inspectors were going missing. This fact was hidden from both the ERA and the District Court.
- 16 February 2021 (The Ashton/Buildmaster Contradiction): Quantity Surveyor Simeon Ashton swore in an affidavit presented to the ERA that Watkins had fallen behind on data entry. This contradicted internal emails showing the Buildmaster software data import had failed—a technical failure Watkins had reported to and was working to fix alongside the software company, Ashton and the Directors and the company accountant BDO Spicers were fully informed of the issue in August 2017.
- 16 February 2021 (The "Forensic" Fabrication): Kenneth Goebel was presented as a "Forensic Accountant" to justify $22,000 in costs. However, his own Witness Statement (Para 1) confirms he was a "temp contractor" for data entry, not a forensic expert. He stated that he had to "recreate" data and that the accounting system was 12 months behind however, the evidence emails showed Watkins communicating with BDO Spicers Tauranga senior Accountant Louise Caskey and Fraser Lellman while working from home confirming they had logged into the accounting system using her password and posted end of year accounting journals to confirm Directors financial reports.
- 1 March 2023 (The Judicial Opinion): In Judgment [2022] NZHC 353, Associate Judge Gardiner ruled at Paragraph [26] that whether HHL "predetermined" the investigation was irrelevant to the debt.
- 21 October 2024 (The Evidence Blockade): Van Bohemen J dismissed the opposition to bankruptcy, stating there was "no evidence of perjury." This ruling shielded the Hunt and Ashton Affidavits from scrutiny, ignoring the Perjury Timeline and evidence proving their false claims were contradicted by the IT company's monthly maintenance contract and a string of email correspondence. The other key evidence presented by Watkins which was ignored by all the courts was a facebook message from the former IT Company staff member who stated that what he had witnessed when the company stood Watkins down and subsequently fired her was wrong, and that Highmark Homes had warned him if he wrote a witness statement in support of Watkins, he would never find work in Tauranga again.
The evidence presented to the Court by Watkins also showed that Highmark Homes completely denied to the Court in their sworn affidavits and email submissions any existence of a staff remuneration scheme of spec building, used the IT issue as smoke and mirrors to divert attention onto data deletion and wrote in their affidavits that they never had a signed contract with Watkins to build a house even though the signed contract was in the evidence and the house was also signed off in the Masterbuilder documents by the Director Ryan Hunt.
Project Commencement & Planning
17 March 2016: Initial bank approval was received by Watkins from ANZ for the build and email was copied to Highmark Directors.
12 May 2016: Bob Hunt forwarded the preliminary scheme plans prepared by Pacific Coast Design to Watkins and made comment about his visit to the Gisborne building site with his Lawyer Doug Lyon.
20 May 2016: Nicola Watkins contacted local Gisborne builder Phil Claffey to discuss the project in order to engage him as a "labour only" builder
. 30 May 2016: Nicola Watkins emailed the scheme plans to Phil Claffey, noting that Ryan Hunt had suggested him as a potential builder
. 2 June 2016: Quantity Surveyor (QS) Simeon Ashton prepared the initial Material Cost report based on these scheme plans
.
Contract Signing
13 June 2016: Nicola Watkins sent the building contract documents, progress payment schedule, and Master Builders guarantee information to the bank
. 17 June 2016: The signed Masterbuild contract was emailed to the ANZ bank. The contract, which included Ryan Hunt’s handwriting, estimated a start date of August 2016 and a completion date of December 2016
.
Construction Phase
3 October 2016: Phil Claffey sent the amended labour-only building contract
. 18 January 2017: Nicola Watkins made the direct payment for the Master Build 10-year Standard Guarantee invoice
. 21 February 2017: The Master Build 10-year Standard Guarantee (No. 167163) was officially accepted
. 14 June 2017: Simeon Ashton (QS) was still emailing suppliers to arrange items for the build
. 14 June 2017: Ryan Hunt confirmed by email ("yep") that he would accompany Watkins to the bank manager's office regarding the project's financing
.
Completion & Sign-off
18 July 2017: Workmanship and Materials cover under the Master Build Guarantee commenced
. 19 July 2017: The Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) for the property was issued by the Gisborne District Council
. 24 July 2017: The Masterbuild Practical Completion Certificate was signed off by Ryan Hunt
.
Building Constructive Dismissal Timeline
14–15 October 2017 (The Weekend): While Watkins was working from home to manage company accounts, the Directors sent over 20 aggressive emails between 10 PM and 6 AM. This included the "Philippines" test emails from Amanda Hunt used to monitor Watkins' email activity which included sending emails from Ryan Hunt's email address saying "test this one". At no time did she reveal to Watkins it was her, Watkins believed she was in an email exchange with the web server in the Philipines in relation to the ticket about blocking the Pornographic content - the ticket had been live for three months and unresolved.
Sunday 15 October 2017: Highmark Homes director Bob Hunt reports over the counter to the NZ Police at 12:00 PM, alleging Watkins has "illegal access to a computer"
. The Police do not call Watkins or notify her of the report and state the report is filed and complete, informs Bob Hunt it is a civil matter. This action by Bob Hunt proves a pre-meditated outcome before any investigation intention was communicated to Watkins. Sunday 15 October 2017 Watkins bumps into Salesperson Shannon from Highmark office at Bayfair Shopping Centre where she is told that the staff have been told Watkins won't be returning to work for another two weeks and she is still on leave. There had been no consultation between Highmark and Watkins about either going on leave, requiring leave or staff being informed that she was on leave and she was still managing the Central Office email system and Royalties Billing for the Licencee Operation. Watkins immediately emailed Ryan Hunt and asked him to explain what was going on.
15 October 2017 (The 9-Day Demand): On Sunday at 5:32 PM, while Watkins was already being subjected to an aggressive stream of over 20 emails, Ryan Hunt sent a formal demand. He offered a "loan" of $2,000 for only 9 days to cover mortgage outgoings for the Wheatstone project, while simultaneously stating that her forced leave was "not a breach of law." This sudden withdrawal of agreed support without any consultation was a strategic move by Highmark Homes to cause financial distress to Watkins.
16 October 2017 (The Stand-Down): Watkins was formally "stood down" on forced annual leave.
16 October 2017 (Monday, Day 1 of Stand-Down):
Kenneth Goebel entered the office as a "temp contractor." In hisWitness Statement (Para 12) , Goebel admitted he "didn't know why he was there" until he arrived, yet he immediately began "recreating" data thatAcre PC records prove was never missing.16 October 2017 (The Accidental CC): While Watkins was on forced leave, she was accidentally CC’d into an internal email from HR consultant Bernadette to the Directors saying "well written," confirming that the "concerned" emails being sent to Watkins were a manufactured legal strategy vetted by a professional "coach."
9 November 2017 (The Disciplinary Meeting): A meeting was held at Danny Jacobson’s offices. During this investigation, Ryan Hunt admitted that Amanda Hunt had indeed been behind the "test" emails pretending to be from overseas.
14 November 2017 (The Dismissal)
The Intentional Conflict: This 9-day ultimatum was issued at the exact same time the Directors were privately filing
Police Report 182540073720 Financial Sabotage: By withdrawing the agreed-upon support and issuing a near-immediate demand for repayment, Highmark Homes effectively forced an urgent and costly refinance of the
81 Wheatstone Road The Employment Contradiction: During this "9-day" window, Watkins was still a legal employee and had been authorised by Ryan Hunt to work from home over the school holiday period, was actively processing the company's Debtor Progress Claims and creditor invoices in order to produce the GST return on time, proving she was working in good faith while the employer was acting in the opposite.
18 October 2017: Nicola Watkins wrote to Ryan Hunt regarding broken agreements concerning management services and subcontractor control for the project
. 14 November 2017: Nicola Watkins was dismissed from her employment
. 4 December 2017: Highmark Homes produced a tax invoice related to the Gisborne building project and demanded payment upon the renting or the sale of the property.
Stood down from Employment with no procedure, Employer acting in Bad Faith
As explained above, the conflict began when Watkins raised concerns about pornographic spam on the company server. Over the weekend of 14–15 October 2017, while Watkins was working from home as agreed with Ryan Hunt, the Directors subjected her to an aggressive and relentless stream of over 20 emails between the hours of 10pm and 6am. This included a bizarre series of "test" emails where in the Constructive Dismissal investigation at Danny Jacobson Lawyers office Ryan Hunt admitted that Amanda Hunt was behind the emails pretending to be from the Philippines to test the server's reach, while simultaneously monitoring Watkins' activity.
During this same window, it was revealed that Highmark Homes was being coached by an HR consultant, Bernadette, who was vetting and "polishing" the Directors' communications to Watkins. In a critical error, Watkins was accidentally CC'd into an internal message from the HR consultant to the Directors saying "well written," proving that the seemingly "concerned" emails sent to Watkins were actually a coordinated and manufactured legal strategy. Despite their claims in the
of having "genuine concern for her wellbeing," the Directors were privately filing Employment Relations Authority (ERA) at 12:00 PM on that Sunday—alleging "illegal access to a computer" while Watkins was still an employee actively working on company accounts, producing their progress claims to their customers and processing creditor invoices in order to complete a gst return. Police Report
4. The ERA Failure: A Procedural & Evidentiary Breakdown
The
investigation was marred by a refusal to scrutinize the technical evidence, creating a "factual matrix" based on manufactured testimony rather than digital truth. Employment Relations Authority (ERA)
- The "Without Prejudice" Double Standard: During the April 2022 hearing, Member Urlich accepted "Exhibit Z"—a gossip email from Ryan Hunt to his family—despite it being a "without prejudice" communication dropped on the table with no notice. Conversely, the ERA spent four months blocking Watkins from submitting her own rebuttal evidence, claiming it was "inadmissible."
- Failure to Verify Technical Claims: The ERA accepted the Directors' claims of "6,000 deleted emails" without ever seeking a forensic report from
. The Authority ignored a Facebook Messenger statement from an IT staff member who confirmed the company’s actions were "not legal" and that he had been threatened with being blacklisted from the industry if he testified for Watkins. Acre PC
- The "Good Faith" Paradox: In
, Member Urlich found the employer acted in "good faith" due to "well-being concerns." This finding was reached by ignoring the ERA Determination 2020 filed by the Directors at 12:00 PM on Sunday, 15 October 2017, which proved their "concern" was a front for a criminal accusation. Police Report 182540073720
- Ignoring the Buildmaster Failure: The ERA credited
claim that Watkins was "underperforming," completely disregarding emails from August 2017 proving the Buildmaster software data import had failed—a technical error Watkins had reported to both the QS and the Directors months prior. Kenneth Goebel's
5. The Failure to Apply the Evidence Act 2006 [2023] NZHC 353
The High Court repeatedly failed to follow
, which mandates that all relevant evidence is admissible. Section 7 of the Evidence Act 2006 By labeling the pre-meditated police report lodged by Highmark Homes while Watkins was on "forced leave" as "irrelevant," the High Court neglected to cross reference the evidence presented by Watkins to the Disputes Tribunal and ERA which identified the clear attempts at perverting the course of justice, and an abuse of process whilst playing in two jurisdictions to their advantage. The Court allowed a fraudulent debt to remain
protected, in direct contradiction to the Takhar principle. Highmark Homes knowingly mislead and manipulated the Court to get their own way and then seal those decisions in the High Court. They used the expertise of David Hayes counsel who is not only a convicted vexatious litigant, and had an extensive knowledge of the law which he used to convince each Judge they would be foolish to allow a self litigant to win the case and with his Colleague Brett Martelli Watkins witnessed their manipulation and confusion tactics inside the Court Room in their communication with the Judges.
The High Court was fully aware of the Counsel and the Lepionka case conduct, yet found in his favour and declared Watkins bankrupt over his court costs which were derived from the perjury Highmark Homes had maintained throughout the years of litigation, and which David Hayes was selected to assist with navigating by way of manipulation of court rules and submissions to the court that the Judges would appear incompetent if they ignored his submissions.
"Pay to Play": The Employment Court demanded6. Systemic Blockade: Access to Justice [2023] NZHC 353
$10,000 security for costs and $16,000 in High Court Costs to be paid from a litigant bankrupted by the very debt being challenged.The Supreme Court Barrier: A $1,482 filing fee remains an absolute wall for a citizen ban krupted by a system that refuses to review the evidence.
6. The Court of Appeal: Procedural Finality vs. Substantive Truth
The journey to the Court of Appeal (COA) highlights a systemic refusal to apply the Takhar Principle, where procedural "rules" were used to protect a judgment that Watkins argued was "poisoned at the root."
The "Evidence Not Received" Mystery: Despite Watkins having verified Registry receipts proving the delivery of her
and supporting affidavits, the COA Registry initially claimed the evidence was "not received." This administrative error effectively blinded the Justices to the core of the fraud allegation before the hearing even began. Perjury Timeline In 2025 NZCA 173, the Court focused heavily on the "finality of litigation." The COA declined to grant leave to appeal, essentially ruling that because
had already "found" there was no evidence of perjury, the COA would not re-examine that evidence themselves. Associate Judge Gardiner The Circular Logic Trap: The Court of Appeal’s refusal to interfere creates a legal paradox:
The High Court refused to look at the fraud because it was a "bankruptcy" matter.
The Employment Court refused to look at the fraud because of the "bankruptcy" status.
The Court of Appeal then refused to look at the fraud because the lower courts had already "decided" the matter.
The Bill of Rights Breach: By upholding a $10,000 Security for Costs order 2024 NZEmpC 105 against a bankrupted litigant, the COA effectively sanctioned a "Pay to Play" barrier. This ensures that a victim of fraud in NZ can only seek justice if they can afford to pay the person who defrauded them.
Supreme Court: Closure
The evidence documented here represents more than just a personal grievance; it highlights a dangerous gap in New Zealand’s insolvency and employment law. When "Security for Costs" and filing fees are used to shield a debt founded on documented perjury, the rule of law is subverted.
Justice shouldn't be a "Pay to Play" system. Until such time as there is adequate legal aid support the writer will continue to represent themselves in a submission to the Supreme Court as this can not be allowed to go on and the rotten fruits of Highmark Homes and David Hayes labour be the reward for 9 years of covering their tracks and 9 years of the court system burying a self litigant employee.
Note to Reddit Law Community and Moderators
If you know who the real owner of the Mike Ross blog is please contact the writer. I would love to chat with him about how his blog has created a passive income over 10 years and nobody questioned his real identify, why he would blog doing manual SEO targeting one party of a case but not the other with tags and indexing pages on Google Search Console. Thankfully now I have an education in how the platform Blogger works although even as a bankrupt I would not stoop so low as to try and make money from the injustices of No Access to Justice
