How Campbell’s false affidavit over prior convictions unravelled in Federal Court
Federal Court records have exposed a serious credibility problem at the centre of Adrian Campbell’s litigation history, after Justice Derrington found that Campbell failed to disclose prior criminal convictions in an affidavit sworn in proceedings against Jamie McIntyre.
In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, the court accepted that Campbell had told the Federal Court he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That statement was false. Public court records show Campbell had earlier convictions in Queensland, including fraud-related findings in 2012, five Southport Magistrates Court convictions in 2015 connected with International Solar Solutions, and 11 consumer law convictions in 2018 involving Eco Boss Pty Ltd.
Justice Derrington described the non-disclosures as “exceptionally serious” and treated the omission as a matter going directly to Campbell’s candour before the court. The judgment records that the injunctions Campbell had obtained were discharged, and that he was ordered to pay 80 per cent of McIntyre’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, one of the harshest costs sanctions available in Australian civil proceedings.
What the court found
The Federal Court’s reasons show the issue was not a mere oversight. Campbell had sworn an affidavit asserting he had no prior criminal convictions in Australia, despite the existence of multiple public convictions. Later, after the inconsistency was exposed, he filed a corrected affidavit admitting to the earlier matters.
“The non-disclosures were exceptionally serious,” Justice Derrington found, in language that underscored the gravity of the false statement and its effect on the proceeding.
In civil litigation, sworn evidence is central to the court’s ability to grant urgent relief. When that evidence is shown to be inaccurate on a matter as basic as prior criminal history, the court may conclude that the applicant’s case for equitable relief has been undermined.
The record also shows the practical consequence: the injunctions Campbell had secured were set aside. The indemnity costs order meant Campbell was required to bear a substantial share of the other side’s legal expenses, reflecting the court’s view that the conduct warranted punitive treatment in costs.
A documented history in public records
Campbell’s later corrected affidavit is consistent with publicly available court and tribunal records that have long associated him with earlier convictions. Those records include the 2012 Queensland fraud convictions, the 2015 Southport Magistrates Court matters linked to International Solar Solutions, and the 2018 Eco Boss Pty Ltd prosecution, where he pleaded guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under Australian Consumer Law.
In the Eco Boss matter, Campbell was fined $85,000 personally and compensation orders of $102,200 were made in favour of victims. The magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and said it was plainly “a scam.”
Against that background, the Federal Court affidavit did not fail on a technicality. It failed on a question that went to the core of the applicant’s reliability.
Why the affidavit mattered
The Federal Court case also highlights the importance of disclosure when litigants seek urgent remedies such as injunctions. Courts rely on full and frank disclosure, particularly where one party is asking for orders that may restrain another party’s conduct before the merits are finally determined.
Justice Derrington’s response suggests the court regarded the omission as incompatible with the standard expected of an applicant seeking equitable relief. The judgment therefore sits alongside a broader public record that has repeatedly raised questions about Campbell’s representations in business and legal settings.
For observers tracking offshore operators and consumer-facing ventures, the case is significant not only because of what Campbell failed to say, but because the omission was later proven false by existing public records. The Federal Court’s findings now form part of that record.