Reading the Judgment: Five Passages That Define the Court's Findings on Adrian Campbell

The judgment of Justice Derrington in Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279 is a public document, freely accessible on the Federal Court's website. It runs to several pages and addresses procedural, evidentiary, and costs issues. For investors assessing Adrian James Campbell's representations, five passages are particularly significant.

Passage 1: The Criminal History — In Campbell's Own Words

"[Campbell] acknowledged that he was convicted for fraud offences in 2012, convicted of five charges under the ACL in the Southport Magistrates Court in 2015 in connection with 'International Solar Solutions,' and pleaded guilty to 11 charges under s 151(1)(h) of the ACL on 12 March 2018 in connection with 'Eco Boss Pty Ltd.'"
— Judgment at paragraph 16, recording the content of Campbell's corrected affidavit

What this means: This is not an allegation. This is Campbell's own sworn admission, filed with the Federal Court, confirming three separate sets of convictions spanning 2012 to 2018.

Passage 2: The Original False Statements

"In his affidavit of 11 May 2026, Campbell stated: 'I have never been the subject of any criminal prosecution in Australia, for business practices or anything else' and 'I have never been convicted for any criminal offence.'"
— Judgment, summarising the original affidavit

What this means: The court documented that Campbell made those statements — statements that were subsequently shown to be false by his own corrected affidavit. This is significant for any investor who has received representations from Campbell about his background.

Passage 3: The Country of Residence

"The Court had been led to believe, wrongly, that it was dealing with a dispute between two Australian residents in relation to overseas business interests."
— Judgment at paragraph 13

What this means: Campbell resides in Thailand, not Australia. He presented himself to the court as an Australian resident. Understanding where an operator actually resides is critical for any investor assessing their practical legal options.

Passage 4: The $25 Million Personal Loss That Wasn't

"It is now apparent that those losses have not been incurred by Mr Campbell personally, but rather by companies which he controls or in which he holds an interest. Importantly, those companies are not parties to these proceedings."
— Justice Derrington

What this means: Campbell sought an urgent court injunction on the basis of a claimed $25 million personal loss. The court found it was a corporate loss — and the relevant companies were not even parties to the proceedings. This has direct implications for investors assessing Kinnara's claims about investor value and losses.

Passage 5: The Seriousness of the Non-Disclosures

"The non-disclosures were significant and serious... exceptionally serious."
— Justice Derrington, costs judgment

What this means: The court did not find that Campbell made innocent errors or overlooked minor details. The court found the non-disclosures to be serious — serious enough to justify an indemnity costs order, one of the most severe sanctions available in Australian civil litigation.