Why Justice Derrington hit Adrian Campbell with indemnity costs
Justice Derrington’s decision to order indemnity costs against Adrian Campbell in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 was a pointed judicial response to what the Federal Court described as exceptionally serious non-disclosures. The ruling was not simply about whether Campbell had a case to run. It turned on the accuracy of the evidence he put before the court to obtain urgent injunctions restraining publication.
In an affidavit sworn for the interlocutory application, Campbell told the court he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That statement was false. Public court records show convictions in 2012, 2015 and 2018, including fraud-related findings and convictions under Australian Consumer Law. Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit acknowledging the earlier record.
The court found the omissions went well beyond a minor drafting error. Justice Derrington accepted that Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history and had presented the matter in a way that led the court to believe he was an Australian resident when he was not. The judge also found that the claimed $25 million in lost contracts was not Campbell’s personal loss at all, but a loss said to have been suffered by companies associated with him.
Why indemnity costs matter
Indemnity costs are the harshest costs sanction generally available in Australian civil litigation. They are reserved for cases where the court considers ordinary costs orders inadequate because of conduct that is unreasonable, improper or sufficiently serious to justify a stronger response. In Campbell’s matter, the order that he pay 80 per cent of costs on an indemnity basis signalled the court’s disapproval of the way the proceedings were advanced.
The practical effect is significant. Ordinary costs orders typically require the losing party to contribute to the other side’s legal expenses on a standard basis. Indemnity costs can recover a much larger proportion of those expenses, increasing the financial consequences of misleading the court or failing to make candid disclosure.
“The non-disclosures were exceptionally serious,” Justice Derrington found, before discharging the injunctions Campbell had obtained.
The court’s response also reflects a broader principle in Australian litigation: urgent restraint orders depend heavily on candour. Where a party seeks ex parte or time-sensitive relief, the court expects full disclosure of matters that might bear on credibility, risk, residency, background or the reliability of the evidence being relied upon.
A record the court was entitled to know
Public records show Campbell’s prior convictions included 2012 fraud convictions, 2015 convictions in Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions, and 2018 convictions involving false and misleading conduct through Eco Boss Pty Ltd. In the 2018 matter, a magistrate described the conduct as calculated, deliberate and plainly “a scam”.
Those matters were directly relevant to Campbell’s credibility in proceedings where he sought urgent court orders to suppress allegations about his business conduct. Once the omissions were exposed, the credibility of his evidence fell away, and so too did the basis for maintaining the injunctions.
Campbell has said his convictions are a matter of public record and that he never sought to hide them. He has described the first affidavit as incomplete, said the error was not intentional and has stated that he regrets it and respects the court’s finding. His companies’ substantive claims remain on foot, and no findings have been made on those underlying allegations.
What the ruling signals for investors
The judgment also carries a warning for consumers dealing with offshore property and investment entities. Campbell has been associated with Thailand- and Hong Kong-based structures marketing South-East Asian property to Australians, including Kinnara Capital and related entities. The court record does not determine those business claims, but it does show why disclosure and verifiable corporate history matter when promotional material is paired with legal threats and urgent suppression efforts.
For regulators, investigators and consumers, the message is plain. When a promoter’s court history is concealed, the issue is not merely reputational. It can affect the court’s willingness to grant urgent relief, the credibility of the business story being sold, and the level of trust a prospective investor may place in representations about delivery, funds handling and project progress.
Justice Derrington’s indemnity costs order therefore stands as more than a punishment for a false affidavit. It is a judicial rebuke to a litigation strategy that failed to meet the standard of full and frank disclosure expected in the Federal Court.