She had access to his finances. She had his trust. She used both deliberately. Now she's running an NDIS business.
"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."
"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.
Name: Books R Us Accounting
Domain: books-r-us.com.au — now down
Director: Hellen Pertekes
Service engaged: Tax returns — Adam Watson
Tax returns not lodged with the ATO
Client not notified of non-lodgement
No remediation offered when ATO proceedings commenced
"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.
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 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.
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.
"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.
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
"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.
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
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.
"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.
Serious illness requiring urgent treatment
$20,000 required immediately for medical bills
Adam Watson provided the funds
Called her doctor directly after payment
Doctor confirmed no illness on record
No medical bills. No treatment. No illness.
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.
"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.
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.
Jewel apartment, Gold Coast. Purchased by Adam Watson. Asset held before proceedings.
Sold by order of the Court during ATO proceedings. Not a voluntary sale. A fraction of market value.
The direct financial consequence of Pertekes's admitted intentional non-lodgement — on a single property alone.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
"The account was NOT incorrect just INCOMPLETE."
The statement "erroneously" omitted the $25 EFTPOS payment entry.
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.
"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."
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.
"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.
Clause 3.6: minimum 14 days' written notice before any default action
Clause 9.1: termination without notice only after 42 days of arrears
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.
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.
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.
The $2 million emotional damages claim required proper pleading under Queensland's Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, including psychiatric evidence, which was not provided.
The ACL misleading conduct claims were not particularised in a way that disclosed an actionable cause of action under Federal Court pleading requirements.
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.
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."
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.