Background
Adrian Campbell and Jamie McIntyre formerly conducted a business developing and selling land in Lombok, Indonesia, aimed at Australian investors. After a dispute about their respective company interests, related litigation was commenced in Indonesia. Campbell then sued in the Federal Court, alleging that McIntyre’s online videos and articles made defamatory and misleading statements about him, including allegations of fraud, misconduct and criminal behaviour.
At an ex parte hearing in May 2026, Campbell obtained a short-term injunction requiring removal of the publications and restraining republication. He asserted that the publications had caused about $25 million in lost contract sales. McIntyre later sought to discharge the injunction, set aside substituted email service, and stay the Australian proceedings on forum grounds.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Derrington discharged the interim injunction. Campbell had failed to disclose material matters at the ex parte hearing: neither party lived in Australia; the claimed sales losses were suffered by companies associated with Campbell rather than by Campbell personally; and Campbell had materially understated his criminal history, including prior Australian Consumer Law convictions and fraud convictions. Those matters were sufficiently significant to require discharge of the injunction, and any residual discretion to preserve it would not have been exercised.
The Court refused McIntyre’s remaining applications. Although substituted email service should likely not have been ordered on fuller information, McIntyre waived his jurisdictional objection by seeking substantive relief to discharge the injunction. Australia was not a clearly inappropriate forum: the claims included misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian law, and the case did not concern resolution of the underlying Indonesian contractual dispute. Campbell was ordered to pay 80% of McIntyre’s application costs on an indemnity basis, with immediate taxation.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant for ex parte injunctive relief must make full and frank disclosure of matters material to the Court’s decision.
- Misstating who suffered the alleged loss can be decisive because it affects the balance of convenience for an injunction.
- A respondent may lose a jurisdictional objection by taking substantive steps inconsistent with a conditional appearance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the serious consequences of material non-disclosure in urgent without-notice injunction applications. A party cannot obtain relief on an incomplete account and then retain it once material facts emerge.
It also illustrates Australia’s high threshold for a forum non conveniens stay. Overseas parties and related foreign litigation did not make Australia clearly inappropriate where the pleaded claims centred on Australian consumer law and alleged online publication in Australia.