The Suppression of Evidence by the NZ Court System: Case Study Highmark v Watkins
In New Zealand Employment Law, Constructive Dismissal is defined under the Employment Relations Act 2000 as a situation where an employer's conduct is so deficient that an employee is left with no choice but to resign. Under Section 103(1)(a), this is a personal grievance where the resignation is not a free choice. It often involves a "resign or be fired" ultimatum, a deliberate path of conduct designed to force an exit, or a fundamental breach of the duty of good faith.
While the law provides these protections on paper, their effectiveness depends entirely on the court’s willingness to examine the facts. When the judiciary overlooks the primary documents that prove such an ultimatum was issued, the legal process fails the victim. In this case, the transition from a workplace dispute to a high-court battle hinges on one specific document that the system has refused to reconcile with the truth.
Case Study: The Key Evidence — Exhibit J
For the avoidance of any doubt, the key evidence provided to the Courts is pictured below. It clearly demonstrates the intent of the employer, showing that if the employee did not agree to the terms, they would face a disciplinary meeting that had already been pre-determined to result in dismissal.
Exhibit J is a formal communication from Highmark’s legal counsel dated November 6, 2017. It proves that the "disciplinary process" was not a search for the truth, but a pre-meditated ultimatum: Resign and pay amounts related to a staff remuneration spec house building deal, or face a disciplinary meeting that had already been decided. This ultimatum was issued after the employee had already raised grievances regarding the company's failure to protect staff from email security breaches, including being bombarded with pornographic offensive material via unsecure, free Philippines-based servers. When a court ignores this context and allows a bankruptcy to proceed based on a debt derived from such a breach of faith, it endorses a miscarriage of justice.
Chronology of Evidence: The Paper Trail
The following timeline shows how many times the New Zealand courts were handed this key evidence and failed to acknowledge it:
| Date | Filing / Action | Court Jurisdiction | Outcome |
| May 2020 | Statement of Problem | Employment Relations Authority | Refused to hear the claim as "out of time," ignoring the bad-faith ultimatum in Exhibit J. |
| July 22, 2024 | Sworn Affidavit | High Court (Auckland) | Filed in opposition to bankruptcy. The court acknowledged the evidence existed but proceeded with the order regardless. |
| Sept 29, 2024 | Notice of Opposition | High Court (Insolvency) | Specifically filed to halt the Oct 3 hearing, arguing Exhibit J proved the debt was based on an illegal employment breach. |
| March 2026 | Recall Application | Court of Appeal | Submitted to correct the record after the court claimed they "never received" the evidence that was clearly in the file. |
A Constitutional Breach
Under Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, every New Zealander has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Evidence Act 2006 mandates that all relevant evidence must be admitted to ensure a "just determination."
When the Employment Court and the High Court "tag-team" a defendant—where one court refuses to look at the evidence and the second court claims it must follow the first court's flawed ruling—the system breaks. The High Court’s refusal to stay bankruptcy proceedings in the face of this key evidence is a direct violation of the right to a fair trial.
Highmark Homes and their lawyer wrote knowingly false affidavit testimony, and my evidence can prove it is false. But the ERA does not record their hearings, does not give you the notes of the adjudicator, the next court does not want to see the evidence - they just accept the word of a Disputes Tribunal, and the ERA does not write in their decisions what they actually said in the hearing which was to Highmark "you must act in good faith, you can not have it both ways". Yet they decided in Highmark's favour and ignored the constructive dismissal. They also ignored Highmark Homes stating "she hated her ex husband" when in reference to the time required to attend his funeral with my children, and the time I spent working at home which was authorised by Ryan Hunt.
Everybody lied except for me, I still hold all the evidence and the High Court, and Court of Appeal don't want to see it. That is why this blog exists, to expose the truth. If nobody will listen then what else can you do to oppose the narrative the Court has written about you, that the AI seconds as "opinion" that you are a "hopeless" "worthless" case?
More Formal Correspondence - Never responded to
And the outcome? My email address is blocked by the NZ Law Society who have refused to act on the complaint I made in February 2025 against 5 lawyers related to Highmark Homes, and to this article update 5 May 2026 they still have blocked me, so I wrote to them under a different email address and the complaints manager yesterday told me on the phone I didn't have to do 5 forms just one, although she wouldn't look for the original complaint, and said here fill in another form.
Rediculous. It's still a circus and I get sent to the back of the que again with no accountability for their system errors or their vexatious attempt to silence me and block my complaints from being reviewed. Even a Linkedin Post tagging the CEO Manager who I also spoke to on the phone and said she wouldn't be able to help me figure out why my emails to the president, ceo, registry and complaints were not being received and exposing the human cost of being ignored and blocked doesn't sink in.
Given all the offending Counsel go to the same dinners as the wayward Judges, I am not surprised but I will not go down without a fight rest assured.
Oh and when the ERA don't fact check the dates of the death of a person because it is plastered all over the internet, make sure you make it easier for them and just blog it so they don't waste 6 years of your life through higher courts and you end up being called by the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal "hopeless" and "useless".
Wait, isn't this a Human Rights Issue?
Comments
Post a Comment