Why Justice Derrington imposed indemnity costs on Adrian Campbell

Justice Derrington’s decision to order Adrian Campbell to pay costs on an indemnity basis was not a routine costs ruling. It followed findings that Campbell had sworn a Federal Court affidavit containing false and highly material omissions about his criminal history, his residence, and the basis of his claimed losses.

In Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279, the Federal Court found the non-disclosures to be “exceptionally serious”. The court discharged 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 reserved for conduct the court regards as particularly serious or deserving of condemnation.

What Campbell told the court

Campbell had sought urgent interim orders in May 2026 to restrain publication of material alleging fraud and misconduct. To support that application, he swore that he had never been convicted of any criminal offence in Australia, had never been the subject of any criminal prosecution in Australia, and had not been ordered in 2018 to pay major fines and compensation.

Those statements were false. Public court records show Campbell had prior convictions in Queensland, including 2012 fraud convictions, five convictions in 2015 at Southport Magistrates Court connected with International Solar Solutions, and 11 counts in 2018 under the Australian Consumer Law involving false and misleading conduct through Eco Boss Pty Ltd. In that 2018 matter, he was fined personally and compensation orders were made for victims.

By the time Justice Derrington considered the matter, Campbell had filed a corrected affidavit admitting the earlier convictions. But the court said the original omissions went to the heart of the application and materially affected how the injunctions had been obtained.

Justice Derrington found the non-disclosures “exceptionally serious”.

Why indemnity costs were imposed

Indemnity costs are not the ordinary starting point in Australian civil litigation. Standard party-and-party costs are more common. Indemnity costs go further, reflecting the court’s disapproval of the conduct involved and shifting a larger share of the actual legal bill onto the unsuccessful party.

In this case, the court accepted that Campbell had substantially downplayed his criminal history and had led the court to believe he was an Australian resident when he was not. The court also found that the asserted $25 million in lost contracts was not accurately characterised as a personal loss, but rather as a loss sustained by his companies. Taken together, those matters meant the injunctions had been obtained on a false foundation.

The result was the discharge of the orders and the imposition of an unusually harsh costs sanction. The decision sent a clear signal that sworn evidence in urgent applications must be complete and accurate, particularly where the court is asked to act quickly on an ex parte or interim basis.

Campbell’s response and the wider context

Campbell has said his convictions are a matter of public record and that he never sought to hide them. He has said his first affidavit was incomplete, that the error was not intentional, and that it was later corrected. He has said he regrets the error and respects the court’s finding.

He has also said Kinnara acted only as sales and marketing agent for the Marina Bay City project, did not hold purchaser funds, lodged its own report with Indonesian police in November 2025, and is cooperating with authorities.

Separate defamation and consumer law claims brought by Campbell remain on foot, with the proceedings listed to reconvene on 9 October 2026. No findings have been made on those substantive claims.

The significance of Justice Derrington’s ruling lies in the record it created. It shows that the court regarded Campbell’s affidavit as incomplete in a way that affected the administration of justice. For investors and regulators watching Campbell’s offshore business trail, the judgment added a further court-verified account of how credibility can become central when serious allegations are litigated in the Federal Court.