A Current Affair Issued Defamation Concerns Notice Over Allegedly False Bali Builder Story
Channel Nine program accused of failing to correct central allegation after Indonesian court ruling favoured Jamie McIntyre
A Current Affair and Channel Nine have been issued with a formal concerns notice by lawyers acting for Australian businessman and LUX Property Group founder Jamie McIntyre over a story broadcast in January 2026 concerning his Bali property developments.
The notice is a statutory precursor to potential defamation proceedings. At the time of publication, court proceedings against Nine had not yet been confirmed as filed. Accordingly, it is more accurate to state that A Current Affair faces threatened legal action—not that it has already been sued.
The January report prominently featured a Balinese builder known as Made, who allegedly claimed that McIntyre or a company associated with him owed approximately A$900,000 for construction work. The program reportedly used the allegation to warn viewers about dealing with McIntyre.
McIntyre emphatically denied owing the money and maintains that the allegation forming the foundation of the broadcast has since been rejected through Indonesian legal proceedings.
According to McIntyre, an Indonesian court ruled in his favour several months after the broadcast, setting aside Made’s claim after insufficient evidence was produced to establish that McIntyre or LUX Property Group owed the alleged amount.
“The central allegation broadcast to the Australian public was that I owed this builder approximately A$900,000,” McIntyre said.
“That allegation was false. When the matter was tested through the proper legal process in Indonesia, no satisfactory evidence was produced showing that I owed the money. Yet A Current Affair has failed to provide equivalent coverage of that outcome or properly correct the damaging impression it created.”
Questions over Channel Nine’s fact-checking
McIntyre’s concerns notice reportedly questions whether A Current Affair conducted adequate independent checks before broadcasting such a serious allegation.
Construction projects in Indonesia ordinarily operate through staged or advance payments from developers to contractors. McIntyre argues that this should have prompted Nine to closely scrutinise how a local contractor could supposedly have extended approximately A$900,000 in unsecured credit to a foreign developer.
That apparent commercial improbability did not itself prove that the allegation was false. It did, however, create an obvious issue requiring careful examination of contracts, invoices, payment records and the identity of the party legally responsible for any outstanding amount.
McIntyre alleges that Nine failed to undertake that examination properly and instead broadcast a one-sided account capable of seriously damaging his reputation and businesses.
Role of Kinnara questioned
McIntyre further alleges that information used to develop the program was supplied or promoted by representatives associated with Kinnara, a former marketing and commercial partner involved in the Marina Bay City development in Lombok.
He claims Kinnara and its public-relations representatives played a substantial role in assembling and presenting material to A Current Affair while failing to disclose the full extent of the commercial dispute between the parties.
These claims remain allegations and have not been judicially determined. There is presently no publicly verified evidence establishing that A Current Affair or Channel Nine received any payment or improper inducement to broadcast the story.
Nevertheless, McIntyre says Nine should disclose the extent of its communications with Kinnara, Adrian Campbell, associated representatives and any public-relations firm involved in pitching or producing the report.
“A media organisation cannot simply accept a package of allegations from a commercially conflicted source and present it as independent journalism,” McIntyre said.
“Channel Nine should explain what documents it checked, what conflicting interests it identified and why it has not prominently reported the subsequent Indonesian court outcome.”
Federal Court orders discharged
The concerns notice follows a separate Federal Court dispute between Campbell and McIntyre.
On August 20, 2026, interim orders previously obtained against McIntyre were discharged, with a costs order made in McIntyre’s favour, according to McIntyre’s account of the proceedings.
McIntyre alleges that relevant aspects of Campbell’s background were not properly disclosed when the initial ex parte relief was sought. Campbell should be given an opportunity to respond to that allegation, and the precise reasons for the Federal Court’s orders should be reported by reference to the sealed orders and any published reasons.
McIntyre says the proceedings prevented him from responding publicly to allegations and discussing what he describes as serious financial irregularities surrounding Marina Bay City.
He alleges that millions of dollars paid by purchasers for the project were diverted to accounts or companies controlled by Campbell or associated parties rather than being transferred to the Indonesian developer responsible for construction.
Campbell and any other person accused of wrongdoing are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The alleged diversion of funds has not been established by a final criminal judgment.
Earlier business dealings raised
McIntyre has also called for closer examination of Campbell’s earlier business activities, including matters involving Eco Boss and GIM Trading.
He alleges that the Eco Boss dispute involved the creation of an Australian operation resembling an overseas business, the sale of licences or products without proper authority, and a subsequent public-relations campaign blaming the overseas company when customers did not receive what they expected.
Any account of that dispute must distinguish between proven court findings, criminal-history material, allegations made by former business associates and Campbell’s own response.
McIntyre argues that the history is relevant because the same alleged pattern may now be appearing again: money is collected through a sales or marketing operation, delivery does not occur, responsibility is redirected toward another company, and media coverage is then used against the party being blamed.
Whether such a pattern exists remains a matter for investigators and courts—not a conclusion that can responsibly be presented as established fact.
GIM Trading investigation
GIM Trading has separately faced allegations that Australian investors lost millions of dollars after believing they were purchasing corporate or government bonds.
ABC reporting states that the National Anti-Scam Centre received reports of almost A$8 million in losses associated with GIM Trading. Other allegations concerning considerably larger sums have reportedly appeared in affidavits and investigative material, but those figures should not be presented as proven losses without reference to the underlying documents.
Public reporting has identified Hilton Wood as an earlier owner of the company. Campbell has publicly disputed allegations linking him to the alleged GIM Trading fraud.
McIntyre argues that Campbell’s statements concerning the creation, ownership or sale of GIM Trading should be examined against corporate records, bank documents and sworn evidence. A person’s claim to have sold a company may be relevant to establishing an earlier ownership interest, but it does not, by itself, establish responsibility for later conduct.
NSW complaint reportedly lodged
McIntyre says a complaint concerning Campbell and Wood was lodged with the New South Wales Police on August 26, 2026.
The lodging of a complaint does not mean that police have accepted its allegations, commenced a formal investigation or charged anyone. The complaint and its receipt should be independently verified before publication, and both Campbell and Wood should be invited to respond.
Call for correction and transparency
McIntyre’s lawyers are expected to seek corrective action concerning the January broadcast, potentially including removal or amendment of online material, a prominent correction, an apology and compensation for alleged reputational and commercial harm.
The dispute raises a broader question for Australian television journalism: what responsibility does a major broadcaster have to revisit a damaging report when the central allegation is later rejected or unsupported in court?
McIntyre says the issue is not merely whether Nine allowed him a brief response before broadcasting. It is whether the network adequately tested the allegation, disclosed the commercial interests of its sources and corrected the public record after the Indonesian proceedings concluded.
“A Current Affair presented the A$900,000 allegation as the foundation of its story,” McIntyre said.
“The Indonesian legal process subsequently found no demonstrated basis for that alleged debt. Channel Nine must now explain why it ran the allegation, what evidence it relied upon and why viewers have not been properly informed of the court outcome.”
Channel Nine, A Current Affair, Adrian Campbell, Hilton Wood, Kinnara and the other parties referred to should be invited to respond before publication. Copies of the concerns notice, Indonesian ruling and Federal Court orders should also be obtained and cited so every legal assertion corresponds precisely with the official documents.
