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 "misleading evidence" by a High Court Judge.
In [2023] NZHC 353 at Para [17], Justice Cooke found:
"It is now clear that the evidence that had been given by the respondent [Highmark Homes] in the Disputes Tribunal was incorrect and misleading."
Despite this explicit finding, Judge Kathryn Beck, Associate Judge Dani Lee Gardiner, and Associate Judge Grant Brittain KC allowed bankruptcy proceedings to continue as if this finding did not exist. By ignoring a superior court's finding that the foundation of the debt was "misleading," these judges allowed a financial execution to proceed based on proven perjury. I am asking the Commissioner to investigate why this failure to acknowledge a High Court finding was not referred as a matter of judicial conduct.
2. Statutory Breach by Commissioner: The Beck and Upton Conflict
Under the Act, the Commissioner has a duty to investigate when a judge’s impartiality is compromised. Judge Kathryn Beck was a founding partner of SBM Legal alongside opposing counsel, Richard Upton.
This professional partnership was never disclosed to me. When a recusal was sought, the Registry confirmed on 26 March 2024 that the Judge declined. The Commissioner’s refusal to investigate this non-disclosure—where a Judge is ruling on a case argued by her former law firm partner—constitutes a statutory breach of the Commissioner’s duty to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
3. The Perjury Loop and the $26,000 Financial Barrier
In [2024] NZEmpC 105, Judge Beck stayed proceedings unless I paid a combined $26,233.15. These costs were secured by David Hayes, who was personally fined $35,000 in [2023] NZHC 3878 (22 December 2023) for a prosecution the court ruled was an "abuse of process" and brought in "bad faith." The judiciary's decision to block my access to justice unless I paid a party with a documented history of "bad faith" and "abuse of process" brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
4. Timeline of Systemic Failure
- 1 March 2023: Associate Judge Gardiner ([2023] NZHC 353) refused to halt bankruptcy proceedings despite Justice Cooke’s finding of misleading evidence.
- 4 September 2023: Associate Judge Brittain (Minute CIV-2021-404-003368) ordered costs based on the fraudulent Disputes Tribunal foundation.
- 9 August 2024: Associate Judge Gardiner ([2024] NZHC 2227) refused to set aside a second bankruptcy notice, ignoring the perjury finding.
- 12 February 2025: Associate Judge Brittain formally adjudicated me bankrupt based on costs stemming from the original "misleading" evidence.
5. Summary of Remedy Sought
I am calling for a full Executive Review overseen by Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann. The JCC must fulfill its duty to refer the non-disclosure of the Beck/Upton partnership and the repeated disregard for Justice Cooke's finding to the appropriate Heads of Bench.
Comments
Post a Comment