Federal Court found Campbell’s $25 million claim belonged to his companies

The Federal Court has put a sharp spotlight on how offshore operators frame loss claims when disputes reach Australian courts. In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found Adrian James Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history and misled the court about his personal standing, including a claimed $25 million in lost contracts that the court found belonged to his companies, not to him.

The distinction matters. In proceedings involving injunctive relief and alleged reputational harm, the identity of the real economic actor can shape the entire case. Justice Derrington accepted that the contracts Campbell referred to were not his personal contracts, but contracts said to have been held through corporate vehicles associated with his offshore business interests. The court’s reasoning left little room for ambiguity: Campbell had sought to present the damage as personal, when the evidence indicated the losses were corporate.

That finding sat alongside more serious concerns about Campbell’s sworn evidence. He had told the court he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That was false. The later-corrected affidavit disclosed a record that included 2012 fraud convictions in Queensland, five 2015 Southport Magistrates Court convictions linked to International Solar Solutions, and 2018 convictions under the Australian Consumer Law arising from Eco Boss Pty Ltd.

Justice Derrington described the non-disclosures as “exceptionally serious” and discharged the injunctions Campbell had obtained. Campbell was also ordered to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis, a severe sanction reserved for cases involving conduct the court regards as especially serious.

“The claimed $25 million loss was not Campbell’s personal loss. It was said to have been sustained by his companies.”

The judgment is a reminder that courts scrutinise not only what is said, but whose business is actually in issue. In Campbell’s case, the difference between personal and corporate loss was central to the way the court viewed his evidence. It also formed part of a broader pattern that has followed him through consumer and regulatory matters in Queensland and beyond.

According to publicly available records, Campbell has been associated with a series of ventures that marketed products and property opportunities through corporate structures based offshore, including Thailand and Hong Kong. Those entities have been promoted to Australian investors while operating outside the country’s day-to-day enforcement reach. That model has long presented practical difficulties for consumers when a project stalls, funds are disputed or representations later prove unreliable.

The court proceedings did not determine the underlying substantive claims Campbell has advanced against Jamie McIntyre and others. Those claims remain on foot. But the court’s findings on Campbell’s evidence are separate from the merits of any wider commercial dispute, and they are already part of the public record.

Campbell’s response has been that his convictions are a matter of public record, that he never sought to hide them, and that the first affidavit was incomplete rather than intentionally false. He has said the error was corrected, that he regrets it, and that he respects the court’s finding. He has also said Kinnara acted only as a sales and marketing agent for the Marina Bay City project, did not hold purchaser funds, lodged its own report with Indonesian police in November 2025, and is co-operating with authorities.

For consumers, the lesson is not confined to one operator. When claims are routed through multiple companies, jurisdictions and project entities, the paper trail can become as important as the pitch. In Campbell’s case, the Federal Court has already found the claimed personal loss narrative did not match the structure of the business behind it.