Why Justice Derrington ordered indemnity costs against Adrian Campbell
The Federal Court’s decision in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 offers a stark illustration of how quickly a litigant’s credibility can collapse when sworn evidence does not match the public record. Justice Derrington discharged injunctions obtained by Adrian James Campbell and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis, one of the harshest costs outcomes available in Australian courts.
The key issue was not merely that Campbell’s affidavit was incomplete. The court found the omissions were exceptionally serious. Campbell had sworn that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That statement was false. Public court records show convictions in Queensland in 2012, five Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and 11 pleaded guilty consumer law offences in 2018 involving Eco Boss Pty Ltd.
Justice Derrington concluded the non-disclosures were not trivial background matters. They went directly to Campbell’s credibility, his history of dealing with consumers, and the court’s assessment of whether urgent equitable relief should remain in place. The judge found Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history and had also led the court to believe he was an Australian resident when he was not. That combination of matters made the affidavit evidence unsafe as a foundation for continuing injunctions.
Why indemnity costs were ordered
Ordinarily, Australian civil litigation costs are awarded on the standard basis. Indemnity costs are reserved for conduct that is outside the norm: for example, deliberate falsehoods, serious abuse of process, or conduct that causes unnecessary expense to the other side. In Campbell’s case, the court considered the non-disclosures “exceptionally serious” and ordered costs on the harsher indemnity basis at 80 per cent. That sanction reflected the court’s view that the proceeding had been advanced on materially misleading evidence.
The circumstances mattered because Campbell had come to court seeking urgent interim protection. According to the record, he later filed a corrected affidavit admitting the prior convictions. By then, the court had already found the earlier version had not given a fair account of his history. The result was the discharge of the injunctions and a substantial costs penalty.
“Exceptionally serious” was the court’s characterisation of the non-disclosures that underpinned Campbell’s failed bid to retain the injunctions.
The Federal Court proceedings were not a final determination of Campbell’s substantive defamation and consumer law claims, which remained on foot and were listed to reconvene on 9 October 2026. But the costs ruling left a clear record: sworn statements in support of urgent relief must be complete, accurate and candid.
Public record and consumer risk
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 stated that it was corrected. He has also said he regrets the error and respects the court’s finding. Those responses sit alongside the formal findings already made in the Federal Court.
The broader consumer warning is obvious. Offshore investment and property schemes marketed from jurisdictions such as Thailand and Hong Kong often depend on trust, urgency and polished sales material. In Campbell’s case, public records connect him with Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, entities that have marketed South-East Asian property to Australian investors. The same record also shows repeated legal and regulatory scrutiny across multiple years and multiple ventures.
For Australian investors, the lesson is not limited to one individual. Court records, tribunal decisions and regulatory filings can reveal patterns that glossy promotion does not. When an operator’s history includes criminal convictions, misleading conduct findings or a federal costs order based on false sworn evidence, that history is not background noise. It is central to assessing risk.
Justice Derrington’s order shows that the courts expect full candour, especially where urgent relief is sought. In Campbell’s case, the failure to provide it proved costly.