The Highmark Homes Adjudication: Du Val Group Counsel Undisclosed Connection and Judicial Omissions

Highmark Homes and Samson Corporation Counsel: The Undisclosed Du Val Connection

Record of Fact: This record documents a significant failure of disclosure in the bankruptcy adjudication of Nicola Watkins. It centers on the professional and financial overlaps between the legal teams of Highmark Homes and Samson Corporation, and their shared nexus with the Du Val Group.

1. The Undisclosed Professional Nexus

The bankruptcy was coordinated by David Hayes (Barrister) for Highmark Homes and Brett Martelli (Solicitor), who has acted for Samson Corporation.

The PwC Statutory Managers' Second Report for Du Val Group (16 September 2025) confirms that David Hayes is a listed creditor of Du Val Management Limited (Appendix G, Page 40). Both Hayes and Martelli have worked together extensively within the Du Val infrastructure.

Despite this long-standing background relationship, no disclosure was made to the Respondent or the Court regarding their connection until Mr. Martelli suddenly appeared in court to represent Mr. Hayes’ interests.

2. The "Samson Corporation" Threat

In the written judgment, Justice Brittain noted that if Highmark Homes did not succeed in the bankruptcy, Samson Corporation would proceed to do so. This statement confirms that the two entities were working in tandem.

However, at the time of the hearing, the Respondent had no knowledge that the lawyers for these two "competing" creditors were, in fact, professional associates with shared financial interests in the Du Val Group collapse. Both counsel also have clients who have been accused of committing perjury in related proceedings—a fact that was ignored throughout the appeals process.

3. Hearing Omissions and Judicial Omissions

The hearing was attended by a minimal group: Justice Brittain, the court taker, David Hayes, Brett Martelli, and an unidentified associate of Martelli's. The following material facts were omitted from the final decision:

• The Lepionka Challenge: The Respondent orally challenged David Hayes on his prior High Court sanctions for negligence and bad faith. She asked Judge Brittain to ask David Hayes if he was trying to bankrupt her in order to pay the money he owed for the sanction and had challenged his costs as being over inflated.  The Judge completed omitted this challenge from the record.  This challenge of David Hayes' motive is not on public record and the Published Court Decision has been sanitized.

• Debt Substantiation: The Respondent challenged the legal fees being claimed as unsubstantiated. This was dismissed without a requirement for proof.

• Registry Failure: The Court proceeded despite the High Court Registry admitting it had lost the Respondent's evidence and affidavits.

4. The Tauranga Circuit and Systematic High Court Defamation Claim Dismissal

The Petitioner (Highmark) and Justice Brittain share a nexus with the Tauranga legal circuit. Despite evidence of perjury by Highmark and procedural and jurisdictional errors, the Tauranga High Court dismissed the defamation appeal, and the Court of Appeal declined further review.

The Respondent maintains that the "winning at all costs" approach taken by Hayes and Martelli, combined with the Court's refusal to acknowledge documented conflicts of interest, constitutes a fundamental breach of Natural Justice.

The Regulatory Framework

The following table outlines the specific breaches of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 and the Judicial Conduct Guidelines that occurred during these proceedings. These rules are the mandatory professional standards for all New Zealand legal practitioners.

Authority	Rule/Provision	Nature of Breach
Lawyers Conduct Rules 2008	Rule 6.1 (Conflict)	Failure by Hayes/Martelli to disclose their Du Val financial/professional nexus.
Lawyers Conduct Rules 2008	Rule 13.1 (Duty to Court)	Misleading the Court by remaining silent when their credibility and motives were challenged.
Lawyers Conduct Rules 2008	Rule 13.2.1 (Fairness)	Using "undercover" surveillance via Secure Collections to photograph the Respondent’s workplace.
Judicial Guidelines	Natural Justice	Proceeding to adjudication while the Registry admitted the Respondent's evidence was "lost."
Senior Courts Rules	Record Integrity	Omission of material oral submissions from the written judgment, preventing fair appellate review.

The "Small Group" Justification and Recusal Refusal

The systemic nature of these overlaps was further highlighted when Judge Beck refused to recuse herself from employment related proceedings downplaying her connection to Richard Upton, she did not disclose freely that she was the Principal of the Law Firm when they worked together.  

Their connection was on based on previously sharing outcomes.  In the Employment Court it was impossible for her to remain impartial.  Her costs award decision and pay to play ultimatum, and use of legalese in the hearing convincing Watkins to drop an application to join other parties while she had no legal representation and was under pressure is yet another red flag in the critique of the NZ Judicial Culture. Despite the clear and documented professional web connecting the legal teams and the secondary creditors, the Court’s position was that the legal community in New Zealand is a "small group."

The refusal to disclose these deep-seated professional links suggests a culture where procedural manipulation is shielded by the excuse of a 'small' legal community.

However, for a self-represented litigant, this "small group" functioned as an impenetrable circle where:

• Conflicts were normalized: Rather than being disclosed and managed under Rule 6 of the Lawyers Conduct Rules, these links were treated as "business as usual."

• Impartiality was compromised: A "small group" environment requires stricter adherence to transparency, not a lowering of the bar. By refusing to recuse, the judiciary reinforced the "winning at all costs" flavour of the case, leaving the Respondent to face a unified front of interconnected interests without the protection of an independent record.  When the Court dismisses documented conflicts of interest as merely the byproduct of a 'small group' legal culture, it ignores the fact that procedural corruption begins precisely where transparency ends.

Conclusion: A Matter of Public Interest

The facts presented here transcend a simple private debt dispute. They reveal a coordinated effort by a legal "syndicate"—linked by undisclosed financial interests in the Du Val Group—to use the machinery of the High Court to silence a self represented litigant who has arrived in the High Court having battled for 9 years against the constructive dismissal, a personal grievance that has never been heard due to Court's striking out her claim. The nature of these proceedings carries a familiar "flavour" seen in other high-stakes cases these counsel have managed: a reliance on aggressive technicalities, the use of "undercover" surveillance, and a "winning at all costs" ego that prioritizes a result over the duty of candour.  Highmark Homes founder Bob Hunt had a long standing association with David Hayes Barrister and used similar bullying tactics with Licencees which Nicola Watkins witnessed while working at Highmark Homes, early on in proceedings it was blatantly obvious why Hayes was involved in an employment dispute as a high level corporate barrister.

When a sanctioned barrister and a solicitor from a major corporation collaborate in a "sanitized" courtroom, while the Registry "loses" the defendant's evidence and the Judge cites a "small group" to avoid recusal, the integrity of the New Zealand judicial system is at stake. The Respondent is currently seeking to bring these revelations before the Supreme Court, arguing that a bankruptcy obtained through the non-disclosure of material conflicts, the suppression of evidence, and substantiated claims of perjury cannot stand. This record is published to ensure that this pattern of conduct does not escape the light of public and professional accountability.