Watkins vs Highmark Homes: The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth

Bankruptcy: Highmark Homes v. Watkins - The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth

An Honest Opinion Piece and Open Letter To: The Rt Hon Dame Helen Winkelmann GNZM (Chief Justice), Hon Paul Goldsmith (Justice), and Hon Mark Mitchell (Police).

This is a first-hand account of institutional failure and the ability of AI to analyze data, find judicial errors, and highlight within a few hours what the NZ Court Judiciary could not see for 9 years in Watkins vs Highmark Homes.

After a year of emotional burnout, it is time to set the record straight. This is my experience as a self-represented litigant fighting for justice against my former employer, Highmark Homes Ltd (Tauranga Head Office). I refuse to let the "Mike Ross" blog and one-sided court decisions echoing a Disputes Tribunal referee be the only narrative. My professional and personal world was shattered by a system that allowed corporate directors to go to any length of unconscionable conduct to achieve their goals.

Synopsis of Systemic Failure

  • Case Theme: Jurisdictional Drift, Human Rights Breaches, and the weaponization of Bankruptcy to silence an employee.

  • Core Conflict: The use of an unauthorized Disputes Tribunal decision to override the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority (Section 161, ERA 2000).

  • Human Rights Impact: Erosion of "Access to Justice" via prohibitive filing fees ($1,482 Supreme Court barrier), formal education barriers for self-litigants, and bankruptcy derived from documented perjury.

Ryan Hunt Highmark Homes Tauranga Perjury Case Watkins vs Highmark

Exhibit A: Highmark Homes Tauranga Team (In Better Times). Clockwise from top left: Alan Hulme (Salesman), Bob Hunt (Founder), Ryan Hunt (MD), Nicola Watkins (BDM).


1. The Legal Mandate: Ignored by Design

Section 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 is unambiguous: the ERA has exclusive jurisdiction over employment matters. This statutory protection was completely ignored by the High Court and Employment Court. It appears the system prioritized "protecting its own" for fear of admitting that a previous Judge or ERA member made a fundamental error.

2. The ERA’s Statutory Breach: Six Years of "Legal Jargon"

The ERA's statutory duty to conclude cases in three months extended to six years in my case.

  • The "Without Prejudice" Shield: Internal emails reveal the ERA used "duty member" Larmer to rule critical evidence inadmissible in June 2022. Member Urlich then used circular logic to exclude evidence of fraud.

  • Gatekeeping: Staff acted as a defensive block, refusing to escalate formal complaints to the Chief Justice.

3. Jurisdictional Hijacking and Perjury

Highmark Homes initiated an employment-related "debt" claim in the Disputes Tribunal—a forum with no mandate for such matters.

  • Documented Perjury: Directors Ryan Hunt and Robert (Bob) Hunt provided assertions known to be false (Section 108 Crimes Act).

  • The $16,000 Kill-Shot: I was bankrupted over a legal fees award of $16,000 in High Court costs. This was the trophy Highmark used to ensure my silence.

4. Judge Beck and the "Pay to Play" Wall

Judge Kathryn Beck of the NZ Employment Court demanded a $10,000 "security for costs" bond before my evidence could be heard. She prioritized financial protection for the defendants over my right to a hearing. Notably, she refused to recuse herself despite connections to Counsel Richard Upton.

Court of Appeal Decision regarding removal of a harmful digital communication

5. Police Failure: Natalie Flowerdew-Brown

The Western Bay of Plenty CIB (Detective Senior Sergeant Flowerdew-Brown) dismissed my perjury complaint as "civil in nature," citing "dead babies and murders" to justify binning a report of corporate crime.

6. The "Vexatious" Counsel & The Lyon Connection

  • David Hayes & Brett Martelli: Hayes, previously ordered to pay $16,000 for vexatious proceedings, was handed a win against me to facilitate my bankruptcy.

  • Doug Lyon: A business partner to the Hunts (Lyon O’Neale Arnold), signed the bankruptcy petition. Despite being a witness to the remuneration scheme, he remained silent, and Judge Beck refused to join him to the proceedings.

7. The Final Barrier: $1,482 Supreme Court Fee

The Supreme Court (UR 33/2025) now demands a $1,482 filing fee. For a bankrupted citizen, this is an absolute wall. Access to Justice is a lie when bankruptcy is achieved through fraud.

The "Triangle of Lies": A Forensic Summary

Witness & Statement ParaSworn Claim (Feb 2021)The Documentary Reality (2017)Evidence Source
Ryan Hunt (Para 4)Claims working from home was "unauthorized."Ryan texted: "It's fine... no problem."HMH00.PDF (30 Sept 2017)
Robert Hunt (Para 3b)Swears suspension was due to "deletion of data."IT logs show the server was "throttled" by a spam attack.Acre PC Logs (Oct 2017)
Kenneth Goebel (Para 21e)Claims he had to "reconstruct records" due to deletion.You reported server failure before data was missing.Police Report OR-1094459N
Robert Hunt (Para 17)Characterizes you as "narcissistic/vindictive."You were fixing 3 months of MYOB errors they missed.10 Oct Email to BDO
Kenneth Goebel (Para 22)Providing testimony "free of cost."Supports the claim of a corroborated conspiracy.Signed Statement of K. Goebel

A Formal Request for Accountability

I appeal to the Chief Justice and the Police Minister to "walk the talk." Stop using "Absolute Privilege" as a shield for corporate perjury.

AI did not do my work; it helped me organize my brain. It analyzed my evidence to find the threads that the courts ignored. I demand an audit of this "pincer movement" and the right for my case to be heard on its actual merits.

Written by Nicola Watkins, Auckland, New Zealand


Read 2026 Triennial review on Legal Aid Submission to Hon Minister Goldsmith

Official Judicial Record & Case Citations

This matter is documented across the following official New Zealand judicial proceedings. These citations represent the primary legal record of the Watkins vs Highmark Homes litigation:

  • Employment Relations Authority: Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2022] NZERA 641 (and associated interlocutory shifts).

  • Employment Court of New Zealand: Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2023] NZEmpC 203; [2024] NZEmpC 161 (Judge Kathryn Beck).

  • High Court of New Zealand: Highmark Homes Ltd v Watkins [2023] NZHC 2185 (Relating to the bankruptcy petition and costs).

  • Court of Appeal of New Zealand: Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2024] NZCA (Procedural reviews regarding security for costs).

  • Supreme Court of New Zealand: Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2025] NZSC (Current application regarding fee waivers and institutional failure).

  • Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand: Highmark Homes Ltd v Watkins (2018) - The original jurisdictional breach.


Read about David Hayes’s convicted vexatious litigant here:


https://tinyurl.com/HMHHayes


https://thelawassociation.nz/counsel-ordered-to-pay-costs-in-failed-private-prosecution/


https://thelawassociation.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/New-Zealand-Commercial-Law-Corp-Ltd-v-Lepionka-Company-Investments-Ltd-2023-NZHC-3878.pdf

Further reading on the Systemic Culture Problem in our NZ Judiciary System:

Mike Ross Blogex: NZ Public Report on Google Guidelines Breach and Judicial Ignorance 

CA685/2024 [2025] NZCA 281  and  CA855/2024 

https://watkinsvshighmarkhomes-nzjustice.blogspot.com/2026/03/mike-ross-blogex-nz-public-report.html 


 The Role of Digital Defamation and Deceptive SEO in New Zealand Litigation 

Highmark Homes v. Watkins: When Justice is not seen to be done and the "Mike Ross" Factor 

Access to Justice | 2026 Triennial Review: Or Is It Just a Can of Worms? 

FORMAL SUBMISSION: 2026 LEGAL AID TRIENNIAL REVIEW  

ATTENTION: Hon. Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice RE: Systemic Failures in Access to Justice and Digital Record Integrity 

NZ Law Society: Professional Misconduct and Judicial Blindness 

The Manufactured Reputation of Highmark Homes: Common Law failings 

Bankruptcy: Highmark Homes v. Watkins - The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth 

Open Letter: A Call to Action to the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner 

Watkins vs Highmark Homes and Highmark Homes v. Watkins 









Location: 7CWJ+3G Tauranga, Bay of Plenty Region, New Zealand

Popular posts from this blog

Access to Justice | 2026 Triennial Review: Or Is It Just a Can of Worms?

FORMAL SUBMISSION: 2026 LEGAL AID TRIENNIAL REVIEW  ATTENTION: Hon. Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice RE: Systemic Failures in Access to Justice and Digital Record Integrity For nine years as a self-litigant in Watkins vs Highmark Homes, I have fought for justice against a narrative cemented in the NZ Court decision database—a digital stain I cannot remove. This has been a classic David and Goliath battle. Throughout the High Court and Court of Appeal, the New Zealand Judiciary has 'defended' every previously published decision and provided a narrative to Google AI that the case has been rigorously tested.  As a submission to the   Legal Aid Review Committee  I bring the Watkins vs Highmark Homes case to your attention in the hope that it will reveal some heavy roadblocks for both the Legal Aid Lawyers and the Litigants, and that it will highlight the technological aspects for reform so that along with Government Initiatives there is also a culture shift within the...
Read more

Open Letter: A Call to Action to the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Watkins vs Highmark Homes and Highmark Homes v. Watkins Re: Formal Complaint – Judges Kathryn Beck, Grant Brittain KC, and Dani Lee Gardiner.  A Call to Action from the NZ Judiciary Chief Justice. An Open Letter To: Judicial Conduct Commissioner Alan Ritchie and Deputy Commissioner Mary Ollivier  Cc: Rt Hon Christopher Luxon; Hon Judith Collins; Rt Hon Chief Justice Winkelmann; Hon Paul Goldsmith; Hon Mark Mitchell; Supreme Court Registrar This letter serves as formal notice that the Office of the Judicial  Conduct Commissioner (JCC) is failing its statutory mandate under Sections 8 and 15 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2004. This complaint focuses on documented judicial disregard for existing findings of perjury and a failure to address a clear conflict of interest. 1. Perjury Uncovered by Cooke: Judicial Negligence and Failure to Act The core of this complaint is the systemic failure of subsequent judges to refer or acknowledge a documented finding of "m...
Read more