Evidence File
DOCUMENT
EP.04
Season 1 — The Accountant
Federal Court · ATO · Tax Fraud Investigation NSD2438/2025

THE
ACCOUNTANT.

She had access to his finances. She had his trust. She used both deliberately. Now she's running an NDIS business.

▶ Video — Coming Soon
Episode 4 — Video Pending Upload
sunlight.quest · season 1 · ep.04
Chapter 01 — Financial Fraud Books R Us Accounting · Federal Court
Hellen Pertekes
Hellen Pertekes · Books R Us Accounting · Born to Shine Disability Services

THE ACCOUNTANT
WHO DIDN'T LODGE.

"She had full access to his financial records. She had been trusted to lodge his tax returns. She chose not to. And then she told a colleague why."

0
Returns lodged
Despite being paid to do so
$20K
Medical scam
Fabricated illness · No bills
1
Federal Court case
NSD2438/2025 · Active
2
Businesses run
Accounting · Then NDIS
The Firm

BOOKS R US ACCOUNTING.
NOW OFFLINE. THE DOMAIN IS DOWN.

"She ran a bookkeeping firm. Adam Watson trusted her with his taxes. The website is gone now. The damage it left behind is not."

Hellen Pertekes operated Books R Us Accounting, a bookkeeping and accounting firm that can no longer be found at its former domain — books-r-us.com.au — which is now down. Adam Watson engaged the firm to handle his tax affairs. He paid for the service. Returns were not lodged. The ATO, in the course of pursuing Adam Watson as the taxpayer of record, became the mechanism through which the failure to lodge was first surfaced as a formal matter.

The Business (Former)

Name: Books R Us Accounting

Domain: books-r-us.com.au — now down

Director: Hellen Pertekes

Service engaged: Tax returns — Adam Watson

What Was Not Done

Tax returns not lodged with the ATO

Client not notified of non-lodgement

No remediation offered when ATO proceedings commenced

The Admission

SHE SAID IT WAS INTENTIONAL.
JEALOUSY. TO A STAFF MEMBER. ON THE RECORD.

"She made a comment to a member of her own staff that she had deliberately not lodged Adam Watson's tax returns — because she was jealous of him."

This was not an oversight. It was not a clerical error. According to information held by Adam Watson, Hellen Pertekes made a direct comment to a member of her staff that the failure to lodge was intentional — motivated by jealousy. The staff member is known. Adam Watson is moving to subpoena this individual as part of his case against the Commissioner of Taxation, where their testimony would speak directly to the question of whether the non-lodgement was deliberate professional misconduct rather than negligence.

Why This Matters Legally
Negligence vs Intent

Negligent non-lodgement and deliberate non-lodgement carry different legal consequences. An admission of intent transforms this from a professional failure into potential criminal conduct.

The Witness

The staff member to whom Pertekes made the comment is identified. A subpoena is being prepared. Their testimony would establish the admission as part of the court record.

The ATO Proceedings

Adam Watson is the named party before the Commissioner of Taxation — but the cause of the liability was his accountant's deliberate conduct. The witness evidence is central to that argument.

Federal Court · NSD2438/2025

TREATED AS A HOSTILE WITNESS.
THE ATO IS MOVING TO SUBPOENA HER.

"In the Federal Court proceedings, Hellen Pertekes was treated as a hostile witness. She is not cooperating. The ATO has indicated they intend to subpoena her directly."

The Federal Court proceedings — reference NSD2438/2025 — are the formal vehicle through which Adam Watson's case against the Commissioner of Taxation is being heard. In the course of those proceedings, Hellen Pertekes has been treated as a hostile witness: a designation that reflects her posture toward the proceeding and the parties who need her cooperation to establish the facts. She has not cooperated voluntarily. The Australian Taxation Office is now moving to subpoena her, which would compel her attendance and testimony regardless of her cooperation.

Case Summary

Court: Federal Court of Australia

Reference: NSD2438/2025

Named respondent: Commissioner of Taxation

Pertekes's status: Hostile witness

ATO action: Subpoena of Pertekes pending

Adam's action: Subpoena of staff witness pending

Status: Active proceedings

The New Business

BOOKS R US IS DOWN.
BORN TO SHINE DISABILITY SERVICES IS UP.

Born to Shine Disability Services
Currently Operating
BORN TO SHINE
DISABILITY SERVICES
borntoshinedisabilityservices.com.au · NDIS Provider · Director: Hellen Pertekes

"After Books R Us went offline, she opened an NDIS business. She is the Director. The clients are now disabled Australians accessing government-funded care — not taxpayers."

While the Federal Court proceedings are active and the ATO is pursuing her as a hostile witness, Hellen Pertekes has moved into an entirely different sector. She is now the Director of Born to Shine Disability Services, an NDIS provider operating at borntoshinedisabilityservices.com.au. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a Commonwealth-funded program that directs public money to registered providers who deliver services to Australians with disability. Registration as an NDIS provider carries obligations, background checks, and ongoing compliance requirements.

Born to Shine Disability Services — What Is Known

Director: Hellen Pertekes

Sector: NDIS — disability services

Website: borntoshinedisabilityservices.com.au

Funding: Commonwealth — NDIS participants' plans

Previous business: Books R Us Accounting — domain now down

Concurrent proceedings: Active — Federal Court NSD2438/2025

The Public Interest Question

A person who is simultaneously a hostile witness in Federal Court proceedings, the subject of a pending ATO subpoena, and the alleged source of a deliberate decision to withhold a client's tax lodgements — is operating as the director of an NDIS business funded by Commonwealth money. The NDIS Commission maintains registration and quality standards for providers. Whether the matters currently before the Federal Court are being disclosed as part of any registration or compliance obligation is a question that sits within the Commission's remit.

The Scam Fabricated Illness · $20,000

"I NEED $20,000 FOR MEDICAL BILLS."
SHE NEVER HAD AN ILLNESS.

"She told Adam Watson she needed $20,000 urgently for medical bills. He provided it. When he called her doctor, he learned she had no illness."

At a point while Hellen Pertekes was acting as Adam Watson's accountant — and while his tax returns were not being lodged — she approached him with a claim of urgent financial need. She told him she required $20,000 for medical bills arising from a serious illness. Adam Watson provided the money. It was only after the payment, when he contacted her doctor directly, that he learned she had no illness. There were no medical bills. The emergency did not exist.

The Story She Told

Serious illness requiring urgent treatment

$20,000 required immediately for medical bills

Adam Watson provided the funds

What Adam Found

Called her doctor directly after payment

Doctor confirmed no illness on record

No medical bills. No treatment. No illness.

The Pattern

A person who was simultaneously failing to lodge a client's tax returns — and has since admitted to a staff member that this was intentional — also obtained $20,000 from that same client under a fabricated medical emergency. The two acts of dishonesty were concurrent. They were directed at the same person. And the professional relationship that made both possible was one built on trust: she was his accountant, she had access to his financial information, and he had no reason at the time to question her.

Direct Statement — Hellen Pertekes to Adam Watson

"I WANT TO SEE YOU FAIL.
AND I WANT TO SEE YOU EATING OUT OF A BIN."

Hellen Pertekes called Adam Watson and told him directly: "I want to see you fail. And I want to see you eating out of a bin." This is the person who was entrusted with his tax affairs. The person who held access to his financial records. The person whose deliberate failure to lodge his returns — admitted to a staff member as intentional — is now the subject of Federal Court proceedings.

The statement removes any ambiguity about motivation. A person who had not acted deliberately would have no reason to make that call. A person who had simply made errors would not ring their former client to tell them they hoped to watch them eating out of a bin. The call is an admission of intent delivered in the language of contempt.

Consequential Loss — Court-Ordered Sale

$6 MILLION APARTMENT.
SOLD BY THE COURT FOR $3.5 MILLION.

As a direct consequence of Hellen Pertekes's failure to lodge Adam Watson's tax returns, the Jewel apartment that Adam had purchased for $6 million was sold during proceedings — not by Adam, but by the Court. The forced sale realised $3.5 million: a loss of $2.5 million on a single asset, sold at a fraction of its value because the proceedings created by her conduct required it.

This is the concrete financial consequence of what Pertekes described — according to her own staff member — as an intentional act. It is not an abstract ATO dispute. It is a $2.5 million gap between what Adam Watson owned and what he was left with after the intervention of someone he paid to protect his financial affairs.

Purchase Price
$6,000,000

Jewel apartment, Gold Coast. Purchased by Adam Watson. Asset held before proceedings.

Court Sale Price
$3,500,000

Sold by order of the Court during ATO proceedings. Not a voluntary sale. A fraction of market value.

Loss on Asset
−$2,500,000

The direct financial consequence of Pertekes's admitted intentional non-lodgement — on a single property alone.

📁 Evidence Files — Hellen Pertekes · Federal Court · ATO
Pending upload
📄
federal_court_NSD2438_2025.pdf
PDF · Federal Court · NSD2438/2025 · Commissioner of Taxation · Pending upload
Pending →
📄
doctor_confirmation.pdf
PDF · Doctor confirmation — no illness on record · Pending upload
Pending →
Corporate Conduct · Federal Court · QUD18/2024

THE $25 QUESTION.
KENNARDS SELF STORAGE.

How Kennards Self Storage responded to a billing error with police threats, access blockages, a mock eviction, and a Piper Alderman legal team — and what a Federal Court judgment reveals about the gap between corporate conduct and legal accountability.

$25
Original disputed charge
7
Weeks of escalation
80+
Kennards facilities nationally
1
Self-represented homeless man
Chapter A — The Error · 27 November 2023

A $25 FEE ALREADY PAID.
THE AUTOMATED SYSTEM DIDN'T RECORD IT.

On the morning of 27 November 2023, Kennards' automated billing system generated an incomplete account statement for a customer at its Southport facility. The statement listed a $25 lock-cutting fee as an outstanding charge. The fee had already been paid ten days earlier by EFTPOS. The customer — a homeless man who had been living in a tent and relying on the storage unit for his possessions — emailed the centre the same day to flag the discrepancy, politely, with a receipt attached.

What followed over the next seven weeks was not an apology. It was a corporate siege.

Sworn Evidence — Kellie Robley Affidavit, Para. 8 · Federal Court QUD18/2024

"The Incomplete Statement, which was automatically generated by Kennards' computer system, was incomplete because it included only seven entries, the final entry being a charge for $25.00 on 17 November 2023."

Kellie Robley · Operations Manager · Sworn Affidavit · 12 April 2024

The customer's email of 27 November, raising the double charge with a receipt attached, was not responded to. This fact was subsequently admitted by Kennards' own lawyers in their Defence filed in the Federal Court.

Chapter B — The Response · 5 December 2023

40 MINUTES. POLICE THREATENED.
ACCESS BLOCKED. MOCK EVICTION ISSUED.

When the customer attended the Southport facility in person on 5 December to resolve the issue, the response was a 40-minute confrontation. Centre Manager Lisa denied the email had been received — despite it being admitted in subsequent legal proceedings. Staff maintained the statement was not "incorrect" but merely "incomplete." The distinction does not withstand scrutiny: a statement that omits a payment already made and presents a balance higher than actually owed is, by any ordinary understanding, incorrect.

What Staff Told the Customer

"The account was NOT incorrect just INCOMPLETE."

Lisa · Centre Manager · Email 5 Dec 2023
What Sworn Affidavit Confirms

The statement "erroneously" omitted the $25 EFTPOS payment entry.

Kellie Robley · Sworn Affidavit · Para. 10 · April 2024

The confrontation escalated to a threat to call the police. The customer had made no threat, had not raised his voice, and was present for the lawful purpose of resolving a billing dispute. Staff knew he was homeless. The police threat, in that context, was not a neutral procedural step. It was leverage.

Applicant's Affidavit — as accepted by Justice Meagher, Para. 7

"After 40 minutes of me explaining that the statement was INCORRECT — Lisa and the other staff member realised I would not back down or be intimidated — they resorted to keeping me locked out of my storage space and then THREATENING TO CALL THE POLICE."

Escalation Sequence — Nov 2023 to Aug 2024
17 Nov 2023
$25 EFTPOS payment made
Lock-cutting fee paid at Southport facility. Receipt issued.
27 Nov 2023
Erroneous statement issued — email sent same day
Automated system omits $25 payment. Customer emails with receipt attached. Email goes unanswered.
5 Dec 2023
40-minute confrontation · Police threatened · Access blocked
Staff deny receiving email. Access PIN disabled before the 42-day contractual default period. "De facto eviction" email issued by Centre Manager Lisa.
6–7 Dec 2023
Contradictory emails from Operations Manager
Lisa: "our storage facility is incompatible with your needs." Next day, Kellie Robley (as "Brad"): "Your storage space has not been terminated." Direct internal contradiction.
12 Dec 2023
CEO Sam Kennard emails — endorses staff conduct
"It's unfortunate that we continue to have a misunderstanding." Does not address the billing error. Endorses all staff actions.
21 Dec 2023
Formal termination — all fees written off
Customer required to vacate by 4 Jan 2024. Outstanding fees waived — after weeks of denial that any error existed.
9 Jan 2024
Federal Court originating application filed
Case QUD18/2024. Self-represented. Seeks interlocutory injunction and $2M in emotional damages.
12 Apr 2024
Kennards / Piper Alderman — summary judgment application
Affidavits sworn by Kellie Robley and senior partner Karyn Reardon (admitted 1994). Summary dismissal sought on grounds of frivolity, vexatiousness, and abuse of process.
15 Aug 2024
Justice Meagher grants summary judgment — case dismissed
Kondratenko v Kennards Storage Management [2024] FCA 913. Costs awarded against applicant. Kennards ordered to facilitate return of remaining goods.
Chapter C — The Access Blockage · Admitted in Sworn Affidavit

THEY BLOCKED ACCESS BEFORE THEY WERE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO.
THEIR OWN AFFIDAVIT ADMITS IT.

Clause 3.6 of Kennards' own storage agreement states that if a payment is not made, the operator must provide written notice and "an opportunity of at least 14 days to rectify that default before taking any default action." Clause 9.1 permits termination without notice only after 42 days of arrears. Kellie Robley's affidavit, in paragraph 16, admits that the customer's PIN access was disabled within days of the disputed statement being issued — when nothing close to 14 days, let alone 42, had elapsed.

Admitted in Sworn Affidavit — Kellie Robley, Para. 16

"For sometime during this period, Mr Kondratenko's pin access to Kennards Southport was disabled by Kennards with the effect that Mr Kondratenko was unable to access Kennards Southport outside of business hours."

The customer, who was homeless, was not in a position to attend only during business hours. The practical effect was a lockout of a man from his own possessions — before the contractual default period had arisen. Justice Meagher's judgment does not squarely address whether this constituted a breach of contract. The case was dismissed before that question could be examined at trial. It remains an unresolved finding of fact: Kennards admit they disabled access before their contractual right to do so had arisen.

Kennards' Own Contract

Clause 3.6: minimum 14 days' written notice before any default action

Clause 9.1: termination without notice only after 42 days of arrears

What Kennards Did

PIN access disabled within days of disputed statement — confirmed in sworn affidavit

Neither the 14-day nor 42-day threshold had elapsed

A homeless man was locked out of his possessions. The question of whether this breached contract was never examined at trial.

Chapter D — The Judgment · [2024] FCA 913

JUSTICE MEAGHER ACCEPTED HIS EVIDENCE AS TRUE.
AND STILL DISMISSED THE CASE.

The dismissal under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 is important to understand accurately. It is not a finding that Kennards did nothing wrong. Justice Meagher expressly states she took the applicant's evidence at its highest — meaning she accepted as true that the confrontation happened as described, that the police were threatened, that access was blocked, and that staff maintained a false narrative about the billing error.

Why the Case Was Dismissed — Three Technical Grounds
01

The financial wrongs had been remedied — the $20 credit applied, fees written off — leaving no quantifiable financial loss remaining at the time of the application.

02

The $2 million emotional damages claim required proper pleading under Queensland's Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, including psychiatric evidence, which was not provided.

03

The ACL misleading conduct claims were not particularised in a way that disclosed an actionable cause of action under Federal Court pleading requirements.

Editorial Assessment

These are technical legal deficiencies, not moral exonerations. A self-represented homeless man, without legal aid, navigating Federal Court pleading rules against a Piper Alderman team billing by the hour, is not operating on level ground. The system that dismissed his claim is the same system that makes such claims largely inaccessible to the people most likely to need them.

The Federal Court found no actionable legal claim as pleaded. It did not find no wrongdoing. The difference matters.

Chapter E — Sam Kennard · CEO · Political Record

CHAMPION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
DEPLOYED A PIPER ALDERMAN TEAM AGAINST A HOMELESS MAN.

Sam Kennard is the CEO of one of Australia's largest privately held self-storage companies — over 80 facilities across Australia and New Zealand — and a publicly active political voice. In 2015 he ran as the Liberal Democrats candidate in the North Sydney federal by-election, a party committed to abolishing regulatory agencies and minimising government intervention in business.

When the Workplace Gender Equality Agency named Kennards Self Storage as non-compliant with federal gender reporting requirements in 2023, Sam Kennard did not quietly comply. He publicly declared the WGEA should be abolished and told media: "I can confirm that we do discriminate against time-wasting bureaucracies."

The Irony

A CEO who positions himself as a champion of individual freedom against regulatory overreach presided over an organisation that used every tool of institutional power — staff intimidation, PIN access blockage before contractual rights arose, a mock eviction, CEO endorsement of the conduct, and senior commercial legal counsel at Piper Alderman — against a single homeless man seeking acknowledgment of a $25 billing error his own company's automated system generated.

Federal Court Evidence Vault — QUD18/2024

THE DOCUMENTS.
KONDRATENKO v KENNARDS — [2024] FCA 913

📁 Court Documents — Kondratenko v Kennards Storage Management · [2024] FCA 913
5 files
PDF
Kondratenko v Kennards Storage Management [2024] FCA 913
PDF · Justice Meagher · 15 August 2024 · Summary judgment granted · Evidence accepted at its highest
View →
PDF
Originating Application — QUD18/2024
PDF · Filed 9 January 2024 · Self-represented · Federal Court of Australia · Queensland Registry
View →
PDF
Genuine Steps Statement
PDF · Filed with Originating Application · Documents pre-filing attempts to resolve the dispute
View →
PDF
Karyn Reardon Affidavit — Piper Alderman
PDF · Sworn by Karyn Reardon · Senior Partner · Piper Alderman · Filed in support of summary judgment application
View →
PDF
Kellie Robley Affidavit — Operations Manager
PDF · Sworn by Kellie Robley · Operations Manager · Kennards · Admits automated billing error and PIN access disablement
View →
All documents filed Federal Court of Australia — QUD18/2024 — Kondratenko v Kennards Storage Management Pty Ltd