Southport court record shows five convictions that later shadowed Campbell’s Federal Court case
Court records from Southport Magistrates Court show Adrian James Campbell was convicted five times in 2015 in matters connected to International Solar Solutions, a Queensland company that accepted customer payments and failed to deliver the goods or services promised.
The convictions matter because they sit within a broader court-record history that later became central to Federal Court proceedings in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279. In that case, Campbell swore an affidavit saying he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. Justice Derrington later found the non-disclosures to be “exceptionally serious” and ordered the discharge of injunctions he had obtained, together with indemnity costs.
Southport convictions
The 2015 Southport Magistrates Court matters were linked to International Solar Solutions and related to accepting payment and failing to supply the solar products or services customers had paid for. Public records and consumer regulator material show the conduct involved customers paying money upfront, with goods or installation not following for months.
Those convictions formed part of a wider pattern that later drew judicial scrutiny. Campbell’s admitted record, as disclosed in later proceedings, also includes 2012 fraud convictions in Queensland and a 2018 case involving Eco Boss Pty Ltd, where he pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false or misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law.
Justice Derrington found Campbell’s non-disclosures in the Federal Court were “exceptionally serious”.
In the 2026 Federal Court case, the issue was not merely historical background. Campbell had sought urgent interim relief and, to obtain it, swore evidence denying any prior criminal convictions in Australia. That evidence was false. A later corrected affidavit acknowledged the earlier convictions, including the Southport matters.
Why the Southport matters became significant
The significance of the Southport convictions lies in the gap between Campbell’s later sworn evidence and the public record. The court was required to assess whether the earlier omissions were accidental or whether they materially affected the way the judge was asked to exercise the court’s powers.
Justice Derrington concluded the omissions were deeply troubling. The court found Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history and that the version he initially put before the court was not accurate. The result was the discharge of the injunctions and an order that Campbell pay 80 per cent of the legal costs on an indemnity basis, one of the harshest costs sanctions available in Australian courts.
Campbell has said 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, that it was corrected, and that he regrets the mistake and respects the court’s findings.
Broader consumer and corporate context
The Southport convictions are now being read alongside later disputes involving offshore property promotions and investment marketing through Kinnara Capital and related entities. Public reporting has also linked Campbell’s corporate trail to other ventures that drew regulator attention and investor complaints.
The Daily Mail reported that Campbell, who is Thailand-based and serves as CEO of Kinnara Capital, was linked to a stalled Bali property project that had attracted significant Australian investor money. That reporting noted investors had referred the matter to local police, while Campbell said Kinnara acted only as a sales and marketing agent, did not hold purchaser funds, and lodged its own report with Indonesian police in November 2025.
For the Federal Court, however, the key point remained narrower and more direct: when Campbell sought urgent relief, the court was not told the full truth about his earlier Queensland convictions. The Southport record, once a local consumer matter, became one of the foundations of a later judicial finding that his evidence to the court was incomplete and misleading.