Campbell Admits Missing Court Deadlines as McIntyre Costs Bill Moves Towards Assessment
Federal Court grants more time after lawyer’s affidavit acknowledges non-compliance — with the next hearing listed for February 2027.
9 October 2026 | Court affairs and commentary
Adrian James Campbell’s Federal Court proceeding against Jamie Neville McIntyre has produced an uncomfortable admission from his own legal team: court orders were not complied with, promised steps had not been completed, and more time was needed.
In orders made today in Brisbane, Justice Derrington extended deadlines imposed on 4 September and established a timetable for assessing the costs Campbell must pay under the Court’s earlier orders of 20 August.
For an applicant pursuing litigation, it is a poor showing. Campbell is asking the Court to advance his complaints while his own solicitor acknowledges that the required steps to progress them have not been taken.
The explanation appears in an affidavit affirmed on 8 October by Nicholas Joseph Rossi, a solicitor employed by Marino Law, which represents Campbell.
Rossi expressly acknowledges delay and non-compliance with the September orders. He says Campbell still intends to amend his originating application and file a statement of claim.
Intention, however, is a thin substitute for compliance.
According to the affidavit, further publications concerning Campbell required review; additional instructions and substantial material were supplied; and counsel’s review took longer than anticipated. Counsel’s other court commitments also contributed to the delay.
These are explanations about workload and preparation. Readers can judge how persuasive they are as an account of why court-ordered deadlines were missed.
The affidavit also says correspondence concerning preparation of the proposed documents is privileged and therefore is not exhibited. That leaves the explanation resting substantially on Rossi’s account of instructions and information received from Campbell and counsel.
Most pointedly, Rossi confirms that no application for leave to amend the originating application had been filed, nor had an interlocutory application seeking further injunctive relief.
The contrast is stark: further complaints were being gathered and reviewed, while the procedural steps needed to put Campbell’s case properly before the Court remained unfinished.
More time — but the costs issue moves forward
Today’s orders extend the dates for compliance with three September orders to 16 October, 23 October and 20 November 2026, respectively.
The Court also directed that Campbell’s existing costs liability under the 20 August orders be fixed in a lump sum by the Registrar.
McIntyre must file and serve his Costs Summary by 16 October. Campbell must respond by 23 October. Written submissions may follow, and both parties must cooperate to assist the Registrar to fix the costs before 20 November.
McIntyre says the earlier award requires Campbell to pay 80% of his relevant costs. Today’s orders move that liability towards a quantified bill, although they do not specify a payment deadline.
For McIntyre, that is a concrete development amid the continuing delay: the earlier costs order is now subject to a defined assessment timetable.
February listing does not decide the merits
The next listed hearing is 16 February 2027.
If McIntyre files an application for security for costs by 20 November, that application will be heard on the February date. Otherwise, the matter will return for case management.
That distinction matters. Today’s orders do not set a final trial for February, dismiss Campbell’s proceeding or determine that he has lost.
McIntyre’s criticism is that Campbell’s failure to progress the case suggests an attempt to buy time rather than confidence in its merits. The documents establish non-compliance and the request for extensions; they do not establish that the missed deadlines were deliberate or that Campbell knew the Court would grant another opportunity.
Nevertheless, the procedural record invites sharp scrutiny. Campbell commenced the proceeding. His legal team now acknowledges failing to meet the timetable for advancing it.
The Court has granted further time. Whether Campbell uses it to present a properly formulated case remains to be seen.
For now, the most damaging account of his procedural performance comes from his own side: missed orders, unfinished filings and another request for time.
