Why Derrington imposed indemnity costs on Adrian Campbell
Federal Court records in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 show why Justice Derrington imposed an indemnity costs order against Adrian James Campbell after finding his affidavit evidence materially false and deeply misleading.
At the centre of the case was a sworn assertion by Campbell that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia. That statement was false. Public court records show convictions recorded in Queensland in 2012, further convictions at Southport Magistrates Court in 2015 relating to International Solar Solutions, and 11 convictions in 2018 after Campbell pleaded guilty to false and misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law through Eco Boss Pty Ltd.
A sworn denial that was not true
The Federal Court accepted that the non-disclosure went to the heart of Campbell’s credibility. Justice Derrington described the omissions as “exceptionally serious” and set out that the court had been asked to rely on a version of events that omitted a criminal history plainly relevant to the dispute.
In proceedings where equitable relief had already been obtained, that failure mattered. Campbell had secured injunctions, but the court later discharged them after the falsity emerged. A corrected affidavit was later filed admitting the prior convictions.
The judgment reflects a long-standing principle in Australian civil litigation: a party who seeks the court’s discretionary relief must provide full and frank disclosure. Where that obligation is breached, the court may not only set aside relief but also impose a punitive costs consequence.
Why indemnity costs were ordered
Ordinary party-and-party costs are the usual starting point in civil proceedings. Indemnity costs are reserved for cases where conduct has been especially improper, unreasonable, or sufficient to justify the harsher order. In Campbell’s case, Justice Derrington found the false non-disclosure warranted that stronger response.
“Exceptionally serious” was the court’s characterisation of the non-disclosures, which the judgment treated as a direct attack on the integrity of the process.
The order required Campbell to pay 80 per cent of the legal costs on an indemnity basis, a severe sanction in Australian practice. While not every element of a costs order was identical to a total indemnity award, the practical effect was to shift a substantial burden onto Campbell because of the manner in which the court had been misled.
The judgment also matters because it was not based on speculation or media allegation. It was grounded in publicly available convictions and sworn evidence filed in Federal Court. The later corrected affidavit did not erase the earlier falsehood; it confirmed the original non-disclosure.
A conviction history the court did not accept as irrelevant
The 2018 Eco Boss matter remains particularly significant. Campbell personally received an $85,000 fine and compensation orders of $102,200 to victims after pleading guilty to 11 counts of false and misleading conduct. The magistrate described the conduct as “calculated” and “deliberate” and called it plainly “a scam”.
That language, together with the earlier Queensland and Southport matters, explains why the Federal Court viewed the omitted history as highly relevant. The issue was not merely whether Campbell had prior matters on his record, but whether he had sworn a false denial about them while seeking relief from the court.
The broader significance
The case illustrates how Australian courts respond when an applicant fails to disclose matters that bear directly on honesty and reliability. For Campbell, the consequence was not only the collapse of the injunctions but also a costly adverse order from a judge who found the conduct serious enough to warrant the harshest available costs treatment in substance.
For public-record scrutiny, the case is straightforward. Campbell’s affidavit denial was false, the omissions were found to be exceptionally serious, the injunctions were discharged, and the costs order followed. The court record now sits alongside the earlier conviction history as part of the documented trail available to readers, regulators and counterparties assessing Campbell’s conduct.