Federal Court of Australia

Campbell v McIntyre [2026] FCA 708

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Until 4:00 pm AEST on 30 June 2026 or further earlier order, upon the applicant by his Counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, pursuant to s 234 of the Australian Consumer Law, and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth):

(a)    within 72 hours of service of these orders, the respondent is ordered to remove, take down, and procure the removal and taking down of, the video publication titled “Investor Update for effecting Kinnara clients from Marina Bay City buyout” (Video) from each of the websites truthtube.video and marinabay.city, from any other websites on which the Video is published and from the WhatsApp group “LUX Buy Out of Marina Bay City – The Facts”;

(b)    within 72 hours of service of these orders, the respondent is ordered to remove, take down, and procure the removal and taking down of each of the articles listed in Schedule A (Articles) from the websites marinabay.city and businessreviewasia.news and from any other websites on which any of the Articles are published and from the WhatsApp group “LUX Buy Out of Marina Bay City – The Facts”;

(c)    the respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents, employees, or any other person acting on his behalf or at his direction, be restrained from republishing, including uploading, posting, sharing, transmitting, distributing, making available online, or causing or permitting to remain available online, the Video or any of the Articles or any part of the Video or Articles; and

(d)    the respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents, employees, or any other person acting on his behalf or at his direction, be restrained from publishing, including uploading, posting, sharing, transmitting, distributing, making available online, or causing or permitting to remain available online, any material that conveys, in substance, any of the representations in Schedule B.

2.    Within 7 days of service of these orders, the respondent is to file and serve an affidavit deposing as to:

(a)    the steps taken by the respondent to comply with orders 1(a) and 1(b) above;

(b)    the steps (if any) taken by the respondent to request or procure the removal of the Video or any of the Articles from any website, platform or service not within the respondent's direct control; and

(c)    whether any copies of the Video or the Articles remain available online, and if so, the URL or location of each such copy.

3.    Pursuant to r 10.27 of the Federal Court of Australia Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules), these orders may be served on the respondent by email to jamie@21ce.com.au.

4.    The respondent be granted liberty to apply to set aside or vary these orders on 48 hours’ notice in writing.

5.    Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Rules, the applicant may serve the sealed originating application on the respondent by attaching the same to an email to jamie@21ce.com.au, with a sealed copy of these orders.

6.    The proceeding be listed for a case management hearing at not before 10:00 am AEST on 2 June 2026.

7.    Costs be reserved.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

SCHEDULE A – ARTICLES

(a)     “Former Bali Business Partner Speaks Out on Adrian Campbell: ‘One of the Worst Decisions I Ever Made’” https://marinabay.city/former-bali-business-partner-speaks-out-on-adrian-campbell-one-of-the-worst-decisions-i-ever-made/

(b)     “The Accountant’s Silence: Can Kinnara CFO Hilton Wood Explain the Missing Millions?” https://marinabay.city/the-accountants-silence-can-kinnara-cfo-hilton-wood-explain-the-missing-millions/

(c)     “’Poetic Justice’: McIntyre Claims Breakthrough Evidence Ties Adrian Campbell to GIM Trading Scandal” https://marinabay.city/poetic-justice-mcintyre-claims-breakthrough-evidence-ties-adrian-campbell-to-gim-trading-scandal/ and https://businessreviewasia.news/poetic-justice-mcintyre-claims-breakthrough-evidence-ties-adrian-campbell-to-gim-trading-scandal/

(d)     “’Put Up or Shut Up’: Jamie McIntyre Drops A$1 Million Challenge as Kinnara Scandal Deepens” https://marinabay.city/put-up-or-shut-up-jamie-mcintyre-drops-a1-million-challenge-as-kinnara-scandal-deepens/

(e)     Kinnara’s ‘Independent Audit’ Claim Raises More Questions Than Answers https://marinabay.city/kinnaras-independent-audit-claim-raises-more-questions-than-answers/

(f)     “Kinnara CEO Adrian Campbell Faces Backlash After Builder’s Case Against LUX Collapses” https://marinabay.city/kinnara-ceo-adrian-campbell-faces-backlash-after-builders-case-against-lux-collapses/

(g)     “From $23M Bond Fraud to $5M Property Mystery: The Same Founder and CFO at the Centre of Both Scandals” https://marinabay.city/from-23m-bond-fraud-to-5m-property-mystery-the-same-founder-and-cfo-at-the-centre-of-both-scandals/

(h)     “GIM Trading Scrutiny Casts Shadow as Investors Demand Answers Over Alleged $5 Million Discrepancy” https://businessreviewasia.news/gim-trading-scrutiny-casts-shadow-as-investors-demand-answers-over-alleged-5-million-discrepancy/

(i)     “LUX Founder Meets Australian Cybercrime Investigators as GIM Trading Probe Deepens and $9.3M Marina Bay Funds Face Diversion Allegations Linked to Kinnara” https://businessreviewasia.news/lux-founder-meets-australian-cybercrime-investigators-as-gim-trading-probe-deepens-and-9-3m-marina-bay-funds-face-diversion-allegations-linked-to-kinnara/

SCHEDULE B – REPRESENTATIONS

(i)     The Applicant engaged in fraud or fraudulent conduct in relation to the Marina Bay City project, or in relation to the Respondent or any entity related to the Respondent.

(ii)    The Applicant misappropriated, diverted, embezzled, or stole, or caused the misappropriation, diversion, embezzlement or theft of, investor funds, customer funds, or project funds in relation to the Marina Bay City project.

(iii)    The Applicant established, used, or caused to be used, “shell” companies, “secret” companies, “unauthorised” companies or vehicles or “shadow” entities, including PT Marina Bay Group and Marina Bay Lombok Pty Ltd, to receive, hold or divert investor or customer funds intended for the Marina Bay City project.

(iv)    The Applicant has engaged in cross-border investment fraud, digital asset hijacking, or has sold, offered to sell, or caused others to sell, real property or interests in real property which the Applicant or Kinnara Ltd or Kinnara Pte Ltd did not own or had no authority to sell.

(v)    The Applicant was the "mastermind" of, played any role in, or in any manner bore responsibility for, the collapse of Global Investment Marketing Pty Ltd, also known as “GIM Trading” or the loss of its investments.

(vi)    The Applicant was a director, officer, manager, or person otherwise involved in the management of Global Investment Marketing Pty Ltd, also known as “GIM Trading” or any similarly named entity at any time relevant to the loss of investor funds.

(vii)    The Applicant is, or has ever been, the subject of an investigation, prosecution, charge, or adverse finding by Cyber Crimes Australia, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Queensland Office of Fair Trading, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or any other Australian regulator or law enforcement agency.

(viii)    The Applicant has been, or is liable to be or about to be, arrested or detained by Australian or Indonesian law enforcement authorities.

(ix)    The Applicant is unable, unwilling, reluctant or refuses to return to Australia by reason of risk of arrest, prosecution, criminal liability or fear thereof.

(x)    The Applicant engaged in extortion, blackmail, intimidation, or threats, including threats to procure the deportation, banning from Indonesia, or imprisonment of Mr McIntyre or persons associated with him.

(xi)    The share purchase agreements executed on or about 1 October 2025 or any of them were procured by the Applicant by extortion, blackmail, duress, or other unlawful means.

(xii)    The Applicant or Kinnara or any of the Sellers in the above agreements has dishonestly or improperly retained the proceeds of sale of the shares while refusing to transfer shares or other property to which the purchaser is contractually entitled.

(xiii)    The Applicant has, or Kinnara or any of the Sellers in the above agreements has, no right, title, authority, or interest in or to the Marina Bay City project, or to receive purchase moneys from buyers in respect of the Marina Bay City project.

(xiv)    The Applicant has engaged in a pattern, course, or practice of fraudulent or criminal conduct, in relation to the Marina Bay City project, or in connection with any other property developments, investment schemes or business ventures.

(xv)    The Applicant has previously been the subject of criminal prosecution, eviction proceedings, or been convicted of any criminal or regulatory offence.

(xvi)    Any other representation conveying, in substance or effect, that the Applicant is a fraudster, embezzler, criminal, or person who has engaged in dishonest conduct in connection with the Marina Bay City project or any other Australian or Indonesian property or investment matter.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DERRINGTON J:

Introduction

1    By these proceedings, the applicant, Mr Adrian Campbell, seeks permanent injunctions pursuant to s 232 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and compensation under s 237 of the ACL in respect of alleged misleading or deceptive conduct by the respondent, Mr Jamie McIntyre. Damages are also sought for defamation.

2    Mr Campbell also seeks, on an urgent basis, interim relief pursuant to s 234 of the ACL. Specifically, he seeks orders requiring Mr McIntyre to remove certain publications from websites and restraining him from making those publications available elsewhere. These reasons concern whether such interim relief should be granted.

3    The Court’s power to grant relief under s 234 of the ACL is broad. That provision provides that an interim injunction may be granted if the Court considers it “desirable” to do so pending the determination of the application. For the reasons which follow, it is appropriate to grant the interim relief sought in this case.

Background

4    Mr Campbell is an Australian citizen and resident of Queensland. He is the director of Kinnara Limited (a company incorporated in Hong Kong) and Kinnara Pte Ltd (a company incorporated in Singapore) (collectively, “Kinnara”). In his affidavit, he describes Kinnara’s business, somewhat vaguely, as “an online property listing and property-development and sales agency, principally for projects located in South-East Asia”. In general terms, it appears that Kinnara markets to Australian residents seeking to acquire residential or investment property in Asia, particularly in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.

5    Mr McIntyre is a property developer who, either personally or through his companies, identified land for acquisition and development on the island of Lombok, Indonesia. It appears that in early 2025, he and Mr Campbell formed some kind of joint enterprise in relation to the development and sale of that land to investors. Mr McIntyre is also an Australian citizen, though it appears he resides predominantly in Indonesia.

6    There is no need on this occasion to assay in detail the relationship between Mr Campbell and Mr McIntyre. It suffices to say that they have had a falling out or parting of ways in relation to the development in Lombok. Consequently, Mr Campbell claims that he has sought to distance himself from the activities of Mr McIntyre and his companies.

7    All of that merely provides the context in which the issues presently under consideration arise. Mr Campbell’s claim is that from about early 2026, Mr McIntyre has engaged in what may be described as an online campaign against him.

Consideration

8    The principles guiding the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant interim injunctive relief were summarised by Gummow and Hayne JJ (with whom Gleeson CJ and Crennan J agreed) in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 at 81 – 82 [65]:

The relevant principles in Australia are those explained in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd. This Court (Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ) said that on such applications the court addresses itself to two main inquiries and continued:

“The first is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is a probability that at the trial of the action the plaintiff will be held entitled to relief … The second inquiry is … whether the inconvenience or injury which the plaintiff would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the injury which the defendant would suffer if an injunction were granted.”

By using the phrase “prima facie case”, their Honours did not mean that the plaintiff must show that it is more probable than not that at trial the plaintiff will succeed; it is sufficient that the plaintiff show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial. That this was the sense in which the Court was referring to the notion of a prima facie case is apparent from an observation to that effect made by Kitto J in the course of argument. With reference to the first inquiry, the Court continued, in a statement of central importance for this appeal:

“How strong the probability needs to be depends, no doubt, upon the nature of the rights [the plaintiff] asserts and the practical consequences likely to flow from the order he seeks.”

9    Before turning to the substantive analysis, it bears emphasis that any findings made or opinions reached here are wholly of an interim nature. The application for interim relief was not served on Mr McIntyre, though attempts were made to notify him of it. As a result, the application was heard ex parte, and Mr McIntyre did not have the opportunity to contest the allegations made against him or to adduce evidence in response. It follows that any findings or conclusions made here are of a preliminary nature only. Mr McIntyre will have the opportunity to contest the allegations fully at a further hearing.

Prima facie case

10    As mentioned, Mr Campbell claims that Mr McIntyre engaged in an online campaign against him. The alleged campaign involves the production and publication of a video, approximately 52 minutes long, relating to the erstwhile joint venture (that term being used in a broad sense) in which Mr McIntyre and Mr Campbell were involved. In the video, Mr McIntyre makes various accusations about Mr Campbell’s conduct in the enterprise. It has been published on a number of websites and is available to be viewed in Australia. Further, it appears that Mr McIntyre has also published several articles concerning Mr Campbell and Kinnara on various websites. There is no need at present to articulate the details of those publications.

11    In broad terms, the video and the articles are alleged to have given rise to a number of representations about Mr Campbell and Kinnara, which are set out in Schedule B of the orders made. There is no need at this stage to set out each alleged representation. It suffices to observe that the available evidence indicates that they have been made. On the basis of the material before the Court, it is apparent that the publications contain statements which are pejorative and disparaging of Mr Campbell, and which amount to serious allegations of dishonesty and criminal conduct.

12    Mr Campbell’s evidence is that the representations are untrue. He denies that he acted in the manner alleged by Mr McIntyre in the publications, or in any discreditable way. For present purposes only, that may be accepted. As mentioned, the issues are yet to be contested at a full hearing.

13    There can be no doubt that the alleged representations were made in trade or commerce. They appear to have been made for the purpose of causing people who might deal with Mr Campbell not to do so, and instead deal with Mr McIntyre. In fact, Mr McIntyre’s statements include invitations to investors to cease investing with Mr Campbell and move their investments to him.

14    In that latter respect, it should be mentioned that Mr McIntyre was, some time ago, the subject of proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. In those proceedings, Bromwich J ordered on 17 October 2016 that he: (a) be disqualified from managing corporations for 10 years; and (b) be restrained for the same period of time from carrying on a business related to financial products or financial services, providing financial product advice, dealing in financial products, or holding himself out as doing any of those things: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v McIntyre [2016] FCA 1276 (ASIC v McIntyre). Here, it was suggested in passing that, by his instructing people to move their investments from Mr Campbell to him, Mr McIntyre contravened those extant orders. The present application is not the appropriate forum to decide that question, and there is no need to consider it further.

15    Mr Campbell also submitted that the Court should have regard to the findings of Bromwich J in ASIC v McIntyre as to Mr McIntyre’s competency in relation to financial matters. That submission should be rejected. Those are opinions of a third party made out of Court, and they have no standing as evidence. Of course, the Court should take note of his Honour’s orders, but the findings of a judge are not established as truth in subsequent proceedings.

16    That aside, it appears, prima facie, that Mr McIntyre has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the ACL. The available evidence – consisting primarily of Mr Campbell’s affidavit, in which he deposes under oath to the falsity of the representations – is sufficient to meet the relatively low threshold required in applications of this nature. Whether that position can be sustained following a contested hearing remains to be determined.

Balance of convenience

17    Turning to the balance of convenience, it is noted that Mr Campbell offers the usual undertaking as to damages. He supports that by reference to his ownership interests in the Kinnara entities as well as another company, AJC Perpetuity Pty Ltd. Though the undertaking is undoubtedly appropriate, it would appear that there is very little evidence as to Mr Campbell’s capacity to meet it. In particular, it is somewhat concerning that there is minimal evidence about the value of the companies in which he has an interest. Nevertheless, for the purposes of a short-term interim injunction, that which has been provided is sufficient.

18    Those observations must also be weighed against the seriousness of the representations alleged to have been made by Mr McIntyre. Prima facie, they appear calculated to damage or destroy Mr Campbell’s business interests and professional reputation, and are directed to an audience likely to take notice of them. That is significant and favours the grant of interim injunctive relief. Moreover, Mr Campbell deposes to already having lost some contract sales by reason of the publications, which he values at $25 million. That is itself concerning, and there is evidence to suggest that the loss may be greater. This furnishes an additional basis for the grant of the injunction.

19    In those circumstances, the orders sought should be made, with a few minor amendments.

Service via email

20    An application has also been made for leave to serve the Originating Application and the orders made here on Mr McIntyre by email. That course is appropriate given that Mr McIntyre resides overseas. Despite the existence of mutual and reciprocal arrangements for service, effecting service in foreign jurisdictions generally takes a substantial period of time and, having regard to the need for expedition, service by email is appropriate.

Note

21    These are the amended and revised reasons for judgment given on 21 May 2026. Whilst the reasons given above refine and develop those that were delivered ex tempore, the substance of what was said that day has not been changed nor has any other material change been made.

Associate:    

Dated:    5 June 2026