Adrian Campbell Drops Defamation and Compensation Claims in Federal Court: McIntyre Team Labels Shift a “Desperate Retreat” and Flags Security for Costs

Adrian Campbell Drops Defamation and Compensation Claims in Federal Court: McIntyre Team Labels Shift a “Desperate Retreat” and Flags Security for Costs
BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA — In a major procedural shift in the Federal Court of Australia (Campbell v McIntyre (No 2) [2026] FCA 1279), applicant Adrian James Campbell has applied for leave to formally abandon both his defamation action and all claims for statutory financial compensation against respondent Jamie Neville McIntyre.

The move comes after Justice Derrington discharged urgent ex parte interim takedown injunctions on 20 August 2026, ordering Mr Campbell to pay 80% of Mr McIntyre’s costs on an indemnity basis with immediate taxation permitted. That discharge followed findings of material non-disclosures by Mr Campbell regarding his residence in Thailand, his prior undisclosed criminal history (including 2012 fraud convictions and subsequent Australian Consumer Law offences in 2015 and 2018), and the mischaracterisation of an alleged $25 million corporate sales loss as personal damage.

The 16 October Application
Supported by the eighth affidavit of solicitor Nicholas Joseph Rossi, Mr Campbell’s new application seeks leave to file an Amended Originating Application that:

Abandons Defamation: Formally withdraws all claims for damages and remedies for defamation, despite earlier public statements framing the proceedings as a defamation suit to vindicate his reputation;
Abandons Compensation: Wholly abandons claims for statutory compensation orders under section 237 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL); and
Narrows Case to Injunctions: Restricts the substantive action to seeking permanent injunctions under section 232 of the ACL to force the removal of online articles and videos, while introducing new allegations relating to the collapse of Global Investment Marketing Pty Ltd (“GIM Trading”).
Notably, the eighth affidavit does not address or reconcile the serious criminal history findings made against Mr Campbell in August, nor does it include a settled Statement of Claim, stating only that one was still being finalized by counsel.

McIntyre Flags Security for Costs Application
In response to the filing, representatives for Mr McIntyre described the sudden withdrawal of the primary monetary and reputation claims as a telling development that underscores the lack of substance in the original action.

Mr McIntyre has confirmed that he will be filing a formal application for security for costs against Mr Campbell. Given that Mr Campbell resides overseas in Thailand, has no disclosed unencumbered assets in the jurisdiction, and is already subject to an adverse indemnity costs order, legal counsel on both sides have anticipated this step. If ordered, Mr Campbell would be required to pay substantial funds into court to cover Mr McIntyre’s defending costs before being permitted to proceed.

A spokesperson for Mr McIntyre noted:

“After telling investors and the public that he was bringing a massive defamation suit and claiming tens of millions of dollars in losses, Mr Campbell has suddenly dropped both claims entirely.

Having had his original takedown injunctions thrown out with indemnity costs awarded against him, he is now running a drastically stripped-back case simply to take down articles. Pursuing this purely for injunctive relief will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more in legal fees—expenditure that appears completely disproportionate for a claim that has already lost its core foundation.”

The Evidentiary Hurdles Ahead
Legal observers note that securing permanent takedown injunctions under section 232 of the ACL without an underlying claim for damages or compensation presents formidable hurdles:

High Bar for Final Restraint: Because Justice Derrington already discharged the interim restraints—and highlighted the relevance of Mr Campbell’s acknowledged criminal convictions when assessing whether publications regarding his character were misleading—Mr Campbell will face substantial scrutiny at trial in proving that the challenged publications are materially deceptive in their full context.
Conduct in Trade or Commerce: An applicant under section 18 and 232 of the ACL must prove that the impugned publications occurred strictly “in trade or commerce”, rather than arising out of personal grievance or public commentary.
Territorial Jurisdiction and Evidence: As noted in the August judgment, Mr Campbell must adduce cogent evidence establishing publication within Australia, an evidentiary gap that has yet to be addressed in the recent filings.
Attribution: The applicant bears the strict burden of proving by admissible evidence that Mr McIntyre personally published, or authorized the publication of, each specific article and website complained of.
The interlocutory application has been listed for hearing before the Federal Court of Australia on 16 February 2027 at 9:00 am.