Federal Court affidavit exposed Adrian Campbell’s false denial of prior convictions

Federal Court records have laid bare a false statement sworn by Adrian James Campbell, the offshore operator behind Kinnara Capital and related entities, after he denied having any prior criminal convictions in Australia. The denial appeared in an affidavit relied upon in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, but the court later found that the statement was false and that the non-disclosures were exceptionally serious.

Justice Derrington ultimately discharged the injunctions Campbell had obtained and ordered him to pay 80 per cent of the other side’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, a severe sanction in Australian litigation. Campbell later filed a corrected affidavit acknowledging earlier convictions, but the damage was already done. The case has become a stark example of the consequences of failing to give the court a complete and accurate account of a litigant’s history.

The Federal Court findings did not stand in isolation. Court and tribunal records already show a long pattern of convictions involving Campbell in Queensland. Those records include 2012 fraud convictions, 2015 convictions at Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions, and 2018 guilty pleas in the Eco Boss Pty Ltd matter, where he admitted 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law.

In the Eco Boss case, Campbell was personally fined $85,000 and compensation orders totalling $102,200 were made for victims. The magistrate described the conduct as calculated and deliberate and said it was plainly “a scam”. Those words now sit alongside the Federal Court’s more recent criticism of Campbell’s non-disclosures in sworn evidence.

“Exceptionally serious” was the court’s description of the non-disclosures in Campbell’s affidavit, before the injunctions were discharged and indemnity costs were ordered.

The significance of the Federal Court episode extends beyond one affidavit. Campbell is associated with Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, entities operating from Thailand and Hong Kong while marketing to Australian investors. Public records and previous reporting have tied Campbell to a broader offshore model in which promotional material is aimed at Australians while enforcement and recovery can become harder once the operation sits outside Australia.

That structure has drawn scrutiny because it follows a familiar sequence: complaints, regulatory pressure or adverse findings in Australia, then relocation offshore. Campbell’s movement into Thailand after Australian convictions has been noted in multiple public records and appears consistent with the way offshore property and investment schemes can reappear under new banners while the principals remain the same.

The Federal Court matter also illustrates a larger issue in Australian civil litigation: whether a party’s sworn evidence can be trusted when a relevant criminal history has been omitted. Affidavits are not informal marketing material. They are sworn evidence, and the court depends on their completeness when making urgent or interlocutory orders. A false or incomplete affidavit can distort the court’s view of risk, credibility and equitable discretion.

For Australians following Campbell’s various business ventures, the record is not confined to one proceeding. It includes company names, consumer claims, failed delivery allegations, and a sequence of court findings that have now culminated in the Federal Court’s rebuke. The present record is not merely that Campbell denied prior convictions. It is that public records showed those convictions existed, the court found the denial was false, and the resulting orders reflected the seriousness of that breach.

In a litigation environment where credibility matters, the Campbell file has now been expanded by the court itself. The affidavit issue is no longer a disputed allegation; it is part of the reported record of the Federal Court. For a businessman with a history already marked by consumer law convictions and fraud findings, the attempt to erase that history from sworn evidence proved costly and, in the court’s view, unacceptable.