Rebel Wilson wins defamation case against Charlotte MacInnes over social media posts

Consensus Summary

Hollywood star Rebel Wilson has won a defamation case brought against her by Australian actress Charlotte MacInnes, who claimed Wilson’s social media posts damaged her reputation. Justice Elizabeth Raper dismissed MacInnes’ lawsuit on Wednesday afternoon, ruling that the posts—visible to Wilson’s 11 million followers for 24 hours—did not cause serious harm. The case centered on Instagram stories posted between September 2024 and July last year, which alleged MacInnes had changed her account of feeling uncomfortable after a bath incident with producer Amanda Ghost on September 5, 2023. The judge found that while MacInnes may have initially felt uncomfortable, she did not make a formal sexual harassment complaint and later walked back her account due to concerns about losing control of the situation.

The dispute began during pre-production of *The Deb*, Wilson’s directorial debut, where MacInnes alleged Wilson’s posts portrayed her as a 'sellout' who recanted a complaint for career opportunities. The trial, which lasted two weeks with hearings in late April, uncovered conflicting accounts of the bath incident at Ghost’s Bondi Beach apartment, where both women were wearing swimwear after Ghost suffered a medical reaction to cold water. MacInnes, 28, denied making any complaint, while Wilson argued she had acted in good faith by sharing her version of events. The case also touched on broader allegations, including claims about a smear website and a leaked nude photo, though the judge did not rule on these.

Key figures in the case included MacInnes’ barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, who accused Wilson of lying and fabricating evidence, while Wilson’s barrister, Dauid Sibtain SC, argued MacInnes had received professional benefits from Ghost and was dishonest in her testimony. Justice Raper criticized all three women—MacInnes, Ghost, and Wilson—for inconsistent accounts, noting Wilson had a 'propensity to exaggerate' and MacInnes had been 'less than frank' at times. Despite the judge’s skepticism, she ruled in Wilson’s favor, stating that even if the posts were defamatory, they did not meet the threshold of serious harm required for a successful claim.

While the articles largely agree on the core facts, there are differences in emphasis and detail. ABC and Guardian both report MacInnes’ age as 28 but also mention her as 27 in other contexts, while SMH and THEAGE occasionally refer to her as 25 in historical references. The Guardian highlights the personal toll of the trial, noting Wilson was labeled a 'bully' and a 'liar' during proceedings, while ABC focuses more on the procedural aspects, such as the 28-day appeal window and the creation of the controversial website. TheAge and SMH underscore the transient nature of Instagram stories and Wilson’s dual role as director and producer of *The Deb*, which faced multiple legal battles beyond the defamation case.

The outcome leaves MacInnes with the option to appeal, though she must file a notice of intention within 28 days. Legal experts, including University of Sydney Professor David Rolph, warn that defamation cases are unpredictable and can expose both parties to damaging revelations. Wilson, in her victory statement, expressed gratitude for the legal system and vowed to return to her work, while MacInnes’ team has signaled they will challenge the decision. The case has broader implications for how social media posts are scrutinized in defamation law, particularly the 'serious harm' threshold, which remains untested in Australia’s highest court.