False affidavit, true record: how Campbell’s Federal Court case collapsed
The Federal Court has laid bare the risk of relying on sworn material that does not withstand basic scrutiny. In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, Justice Derrington found that Adrian Campbell’s affidavit evidence contained serious non-disclosures about his criminal history, leading to the discharge of injunctions he had obtained and an indemnity costs order against him.
The judgment centred on Campbell’s sworn denial that he had ever been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That assertion was false. Public court records show convictions recorded in Queensland in 2012, a further five convictions in 2015 at Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions, and 11 counts in 2018 under Australian Consumer Law arising from the Eco Boss Pty Ltd matter.
What the court found
Justice Derrington described the non-disclosures as “exceptionally serious”. The court found Campbell had substantially downplayed his record, and that his affidavit gave the wrong impression on matters central to the interlocutory relief he sought. The judge also found the evidence had led the court to believe Campbell was an Australian resident when he was not, and that his claimed $25 million in lost contracts was in fact sustained by his companies rather than by him personally.
The result was severe. The injunctions were discharged, and Campbell was ordered to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis — the harshest costs sanction commonly available in Australian courts.
Justice Derrington found the omissions to be exceptionally serious, and the court treated the sworn evidence as a material foundation for the relief that had been granted.
The case did not determine the substance of Campbell’s wider defamation and consumer law claims, which remain on foot. Those proceedings were listed to reconvene on 9 October 2026.
Public record versus sworn denial
The clash between the affidavit and the public record is the core of the case. Campbell’s criminal history is not obscure. The 2012 fraud convictions, the 2015 Southport Magistrates Court matters connected to International Solar Solutions, and the 2018 Eco Boss Pty Ltd consumer law convictions are all matters of publicly available court record.
In the 2018 case, Campbell pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law. He was fined $85,000 personally and compensation orders totalling $102,200 were made in favour of victims. The magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and said it was plainly “a scam”.
Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit admitting the prior convictions. His response, placed on the record, was that the convictions were “a matter of public record” and that he never sought to hide them. He said the first affidavit was incomplete, that the error was not intentional, that it was corrected, and that he respected the court’s finding.
Why the judgment matters
The decision has significance beyond one dispute. Interim orders are often sought urgently and granted on affidavit evidence. When that evidence is incomplete or misleading, the consequences can be immediate and costly. In this case, the court found the non-disclosures went to the heart of Campbell’s credibility and the propriety of the relief he had obtained.
Campbell is Thailand-based and associated with Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, entities that market South-East Asian property to foreign investors. His broader corporate record has attracted scrutiny in other proceedings and media reporting, including the Daily Mail, which reported on links between Campbell and a stalled Bali property development.
But in the Federal Court, the issue was narrower and more direct: a sworn denial of convictions that did not exist in law or fact. On the court record, that denial unravelled his injunctions and exposed the risks of asking a court to act on incomplete disclosure.