Why Derrington hit Campbell with the harshest costs order available

Justice Derrington’s decision to order Adrian Campbell to pay 80 per cent of legal costs on an indemnity basis was not a routine sanction. In Australian court practice, indemnity costs are reserved for serious departures from proper conduct, and in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 the Federal Court concluded that Campbell’s conduct justified one of the harshest costs consequences available.

The reason was straightforward and stark. Campbell swore an affidavit saying he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. Court records later showed that statement was false. Public judgments and tribunal records also document convictions in Queensland in 2012, five convictions in 2015 at Southport Magistrates Court relating to International Solar Solutions, and 11 consumer law offences in 2018 involving Eco Boss Pty Ltd.

That false sworn evidence went to the heart of the Federal Court proceeding. Justice Derrington found the non-disclosures to be “exceptionally serious”, and the court discharged the injunctions Campbell had obtained. The later corrected affidavit admitted the prior convictions, but that did not undo the damage caused by the original sworn statement.

“Exceptionally serious” was the court’s description of the non-disclosures that had been placed before the Federal Court.

The indemnity costs order reflected the court’s view that the proceedings had been compromised by Campbell’s failure to put his criminal history before the court from the outset. In ordinary costs orders, a losing party may be required to pay a substantial portion of the other side’s costs on the standard basis. Indemnity costs go further, shifting a heavier burden and signalling judicial disapproval of the conduct in question.

Campbell’s record was not obscure. The 2018 Eco Boss matter ended with guilty pleas to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. He was fined $85,000 personally and compensation orders of $102,200 were made for victims. The magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and said it was plainly “a scam”. Those findings were made in open court and are part of the public record.

The Federal Court’s response therefore did more than punish a false affidavit. It underscored the importance of candour in proceedings where a party seeks discretionary relief. A litigant asking a court to grant injunctions is expected to disclose matters that bear directly on credibility and conduct. Where sworn evidence is shown to be false, the court can treat the omission as a profound abuse of process.

That issue is also relevant to Campbell’s broader offshore profile. Court records and public documents show his business activity operating through entities including Kinnara Capital, Kinnara Asia and Kinnara Limited, with marketing directed at Australian investors while the corporate structure was based offshore in Thailand and Hong Kong. In that context, the Federal Court’s findings take on added significance: they show that the legal risk is not merely commercial, but also reputational and procedural.

Justice Derrington’s costs order is best understood as a judicial warning. Where sworn evidence is inaccurate on a matter as central as prior convictions, and where the court concludes the non-disclosure is exceptionally serious, the response can be severe. In Campbell’s case, the Federal Court used its costs power to mark the gravity of the breach and to protect the integrity of its own process.

For Australian investors following offshore operators, the case is a reminder that court records often reveal more than marketing material ever will. In this instance, the public record already contained the history that Campbell failed to disclose, and the court’s response showed that such omissions can carry consequences long after the original affidavit is filed.