Campbell’s corrected affidavit and the cost of a false court record
The corrected affidavit filed in August 2026 by Adrian James Campbell brought into sharp relief a point the Federal Court had already treated as exceptionally serious: the gap between Campbell’s sworn account and the public record. In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found that Campbell had sworn he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia, when court records showed otherwise.
The later correction did not erase the earlier falsehood. It instead confirmed that the affidavit originally placed before the court had omitted a conviction history spanning more than a decade. Publicly available records show convictions in Queensland in 2012, five convictions at Southport Magistrates Court in 2015 concerning International Solar Solutions, and 2018 guilty pleas in the Eco Boss Pty Ltd matter, where Campbell was fined personally and compensation orders were made to victims.
A sworn statement that could not stand
In Federal Court proceedings, affidavit evidence is not incidental. It is the material on which urgent relief, injunctions and interlocutory orders may turn. Where a party swears to a falsehood about their criminal history, the issue is not simply one of credibility. It goes directly to whether the court can trust the evidence at all.
Justice Derrington’s reasons made that point plain. The non-disclosures were described as “exceptionally serious”, and the injunctions Campbell had obtained were discharged. The court also ordered Campbell to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis, a severe costs outcome reserved for conduct the court regards as well beyond the ordinary run of litigation missteps.
“Exceptionally serious” was the court’s characterisation of the non-disclosures, underscoring how far the affidavit fell short of the standard required of a litigant seeking equitable relief.
The corrected affidavit, filed later in August 2026, admitted the prior convictions. But in legal and reputational terms, the correction arrived after the damage had already been done. The court had already acted on the basis that the original sworn material was false and incomplete.
The public record was always there
The significance of the August correction lies partly in what it shows about the available record. Campbell’s convictions were not hidden in obscure archives. They were matters of public judicial record. The 2018 Eco Boss proceedings were especially notable: the magistrate described the conduct as calculated and deliberate, and used the word “scam” in open court. Compensation orders totalling $102,200 were made to victims, and Campbell was fined $85,000 personally.
That history matters because Federal Court proceedings often depend on candour. A litigant who seeks the court’s protection while withholding a material criminal background invites intense scrutiny. The subsequent correction, rather than providing a clean slate, confirmed the existence of the very convictions the court had found omitted.
Why the correction matters beyond one case
The Campbell matter is also a reminder of how public records can outlast corporate reinvention. After earlier enforcement action, Campbell has operated through offshore structures linked to Thailand and Hong Kong, including Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited. Those entities have been associated with marketing to Australian investors from outside Australia, where regulatory reach can be more complicated.
That pattern has become familiar in consumer protection disputes: a shift offshore, a new trading name, and a renewed pitch to Australian buyers or investors. The Federal Court’s 2026 findings add another layer to that picture. They show not merely a business dispute, but a sworn denial about criminal history that the court found untenable.
For regulators, litigants and prospective investors, the lesson is straightforward. Court records remain central. So do affidavits, because they reveal not only what a person did, but what they were prepared to swear was true. In Campbell’s case, the corrected affidavit did not neutralise the significance of the original false statement. It confirmed that the earlier version was unsustainable, and that the court had been right to treat the omission with exceptional seriousness.