Adrian Campbell News
Back to articles
Offshore Investigation14 October 2026

Federal Court found Campbell’s $25m loss claim belonged to his companies, not him

Federal Court found Campbell’s $25m loss claim belonged to his companies, not him

The Federal Court has exposed a critical flaw in Adrian Campbell’s attempt to portray himself as the personal victim of a multimillion-dollar legal dispute: the $25 million in alleged lost contracts was not his personal loss, but a loss sustained by his companies.

In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found Campbell had made serious non-disclosures in support of urgent interim injunctions he had obtained earlier this year. Among the most significant was the way he framed the alleged financial damage from the dispute. The court found the claimed loss was effectively a company loss, not a personal one.

That distinction mattered. Campbell had sworn in an affidavit that omitted his prior Australian criminal history and gave the court a misleading picture of both his background and his position. Justice Derrington described the omissions as “exceptionally serious” and discharged the injunctions Campbell had secured.

A loss claim the court did not accept at face value

The proceedings arose after Campbell sought urgent relief against Jamie McIntyre, the founder of LUX Property Group. Campbell had claimed defamatory material had cost him $25 million in contracts. The court later found that the asserted loss belonged to the corporate entities through which Campbell operated, not to Campbell personally.

That finding cut against the way the claim had been presented to the court. It also sat alongside other findings that Campbell had substantially downplayed his history and had led the court to believe he was an Australian resident when he was not.

Justice Derrington’s orders were severe. The injunctions were discharged and Campbell was ordered to pay 80 per cent of the legal costs on an indemnity basis, one of the harshest costs sanctions available in Australian courts.

Justice Derrington found the non-disclosures were “exceptionally serious”.

The affidavit evidence that unravelled

Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting prior convictions, including 2012 fraud convictions, five Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 linked to International Solar Solutions, and 11 consumer law offences in 2018 involving Eco Boss Pty Ltd. In that earlier matter, a magistrate described the conduct as “calculated”, “deliberate” and plainly “a scam”.

The Federal Court record matters because Campbell’s offshore business interests continue to target Australian investors. Campbell is based in Thailand and has been associated with Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, entities marketing South-East Asian property ventures. Public reporting has linked those operations to a stalled Bali villa project that drew heavy scrutiny after investors alleged money had been channelled through accounts around the world.

The Daily Mail reported in October 2026 that Campbell was linked to the embattled Bali property scheme and that his convictions had largely escaped wider media attention until then.

What Campbell says

Campbell’s response has been that his convictions are a matter of public record and that he never sought to hide them. He has said his first affidavit was incomplete, that the error was not intentional, and that it was corrected. He has also said he regrets the error and respects the court’s finding.

On the Bali project, Campbell has said Kinnara acted only as a sales and marketing agent, did not hold purchaser funds, lodged its own report with Indonesian police in November 2025, and is co-operating with authorities. No charges have been laid in relation to that project.

The broader significance of the Federal Court ruling is straightforward. In disputes involving offshore entities, the way loss is characterised can be as important as the loss itself. Here, the court found the claimed $25 million did not belong to Campbell as he had presented it, adding another layer to a record already under intense public scrutiny.

The substantive defamation and consumer law claims remain on foot, with the proceedings listed to reconvene on 9 October 2026.