BLOG

Author admin

The facts

Actor Charlotte MacInnes (28), brought a defamation suit against Hollywood actor and director Rebel Wilson.

The dispute arose following a 2023 incident at Bondi Beach involving Ms MacInnes and film producer/financier Amanda Ghost (51). Ms Ghost experienced a severe skin reaction after an ocean swim, leading both women to share a bath in their swimwear to warm up.

Ms Wilson claimed Ms MacInnes told her the following day that she felt “uncomfortable” during the bath incident, which Ms Wilson characterized as a workplace sexual harassment complaint. Ms MacInnes denied ever making such a complaint.

In July 2024, Ms Wilson published a series of social media posts (and hosted content via a PR website) suggesting Ms MacInnes had recanted her account of sexual harassment in exchange for career advancement, acting, and singing opportunities provided by Ms Ghost.

Ms MacInnes sued Ms Wilson in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking general and aggravated damages for harm caused to her reputation.

Relevant Law/ Legislation

Under Australian defamation principles, an applicant must establish that the publication of a defamatory matter caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation.

The court evaluates whether an imputation conveyed in a publication is actually defamatory based on objective community standards.

Federal Court’s decision

Justice Elizabeth Raper found that Ms MacInnes did initially complain to Ms Wilson about the bath incident, but subsequently changed her story and sought to “walk back” her complaint because she felt she was losing control of the situation.

Justice Raper noted serious misgivings regarding the truthfulness of the testimony provided by all three principal figures—describing Ms MacInnes, Ms Wilson, and Ms Ghost as “unreliable witnesses”. She noted Ms Wilson possessed a “propensity to exaggerate,” but found that her contemporaneous documentary trail supported her claim that a complaint had been made.

While one social media post conveyed an imputation regarding Ms MacInnes, Justice Raper determined it was not defamatory, stating that asserting someone “changed their story” is not objectively defamatory according to community standards.

Furthermore, Ms MacInnes failed to establish that the post caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation.

Conclusion

The Federal Court ruled in favor of Rebel Wilson, finding that the statements made did not meet the legal threshold for defamation nor did they inflict serious harm on Charlotte MacInnes’s reputation. The case highlighted significant credibility issues among all key witnesses involved, ultimately culminating in the dismissal of the suit and an award of legal costs against  MacInnes.

Author admin

When a loved one is struggling with severe mental illness, navigating the legal and medical systems can feel completely overwhelming. If you or someone you care about is facing a Treatment Authority in Queensland, you probably have a lot of questions.

A Treatment Authority is a powerful legal mechanism, but it is also highly regulated to ensure patients’ rights are protected. Here is a clear, human-centred guide to what a Treatment Authority means and how the law safeguards those under it.

A Treatment Authority is an order made by an authorised doctor that allows a person with a mental illness to receive treatment without their consent.

Depending on the circumstances, this treatment can happen in two ways:

• Inpatient category: The person receives involuntary care while detained at an authorised mental health facility.

• Community category: The person lives at home but must comply with a treatment plan in the community.

The strict rule under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) is that a doctor must opt for the community category unless they believe the person’s needs or safety (or the safety of others) cannot be reasonably met outside a hospital.

An authorised doctor cannot simply impose a Treatment Authority. They must be strictly satisfied that all of the following “treatment criteria” apply:

1. Mental Illness & Lack of Capacity: The person has a mental illness and currently lacks the capacity to consent to treatment. (Note: Having “capacity” means understanding the nature, benefits, and risks of the treatment, and being able to communicate a choice).

2. Risk of Serious Harm or Deterioration: Without involuntary treatment, the person is likely to experience imminent serious harm (or cause it to others) or suffer serious physical or mental deterioration.

3. No Less Restrictive Way: There is absolutely no other, less restrictive way for them to safely receive care.

What counts as a “less restrictive way”?

If treatment can be safely managed via an Advance Health Directive, an appointed personal guardian, or a statutory health attorney, a Treatment Authority cannot legally be made.

A Treatment Authority is never meant to be permanent. The system is designed to regularly review the order to ensure it is revoked the moment a patient regains capacity or can be treated more leniently.

Orders are reviewed and can be revoked through several channels:

• Doctor Reviews: If the order was made by a general doctor, an authorised psychiatrist must review and confirm or revoke it (usually within 3 days). Regular reassessments must occur at least every 3 months.

• The Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT): The MHRT is an independent body that automatically reviews the authority within the first 28 days, again at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. You, a loved one, or an “interested person” can also apply for a review at any time.

• Appeals: If you disagree with an MHRT decision, an appeal can be lodged with the Mental Health Court.

The Mental Health Act 2016 emphasizes that involuntary treatment should always be a last resort, aiming to safeguard rights and promote recovery. However, ensuring that a patient’s views, wishes, and legal rights are actually being heard can be incredibly stressful when you are in the thick of a medical crisis.

If you or a family member are dealing with a Treatment Authority or an upcoming Mental Health Review Tribunal hearing, having an experienced, compassionate legal ally can make all the difference. We understand how sensitive these situations are, and we are here to help you advocate for the dignity and rights your loved one deserves.

Contact our friendly, experienced team today to discuss how we can support you through this process.

Author admin

In January 2026, the Australian political landscape shifted significantly as the Labor government passed the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. This legislation, moved with striking speed following a tragic attack in Bondi in late 2025, represents the most substantial expansion of federal hate speech laws in decades.

While the government argues these changes are essential for “social cohesion” and the safety of vulnerable communities, civil libertarians and free speech advocates are sounding the alarm. The bill doesn’t just tweak existing laws; it fundamentally recalibrates the balance between the right to speak and the right to be protected from harm.

Continue reading “Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026”

Author admin

Former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has been awarded $315,000 plus interest in her defamation claim against Brittany Higgins after the WA Supreme Court found Higgins defamed her in a series of social media posts.

Continue reading “Linda Reynolds wins defamation case against Brittany Higgins”

Author admin

You may have heard about the RBA earlier this year reducing its cash rate from 4.35% to 3.85%:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/rba-rate-cut-reaction-times-vary-between-banks/news-story/c982179aefb176f2c0ac0e708f3a0189

Continue reading “Interest rates”

Author admin

Rockhampton solicitor Douglas Winning, otherwise known as Doug F***ing Winning, will be removed from the roll of lawyers after a QCAT decision.

At about 1.00 am on Sunday 17 February 2019, police were patrolling in Rockhampton when they saw a car driving erratically and knocking over a street sign. They pulled the car over and found the driver was local solicitor Douglas “call me Doug” Winning.

A true man of style, Winning was wearing only a pair of shorts. His vehicle had sustained damage on the bonnet and a front tyre. When asked that he had been drinking, Winning nominated the amount as “a bottle of rum”, explaining that he had had a sleep since finishing it. He was slurring his words. He twice said “You’re not going to pinch me”.
Continue reading “Douglas Winning to be struck off”

Author admin

Sentencing in criminal law, as is well known, is a matter for the discretion of the sentencing Judge. A discretion in the law means that rather than ‘hard and fast’ (inflexible) rules determining the outcome, the judge is to exercise their own judgment in each case after considering all relevant factors. As the majority of the High Court of Australia observed in GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32:

“a discretionary decision, properly so called, is one in respect of which the law permits reasonable minds to differ.”

In Queensland, criminal sentencing of adult offenders must be in accordance with the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

Continue reading “10 principles of sentencing in Queensland”

Author admin

Most complaints about lawyers concern how high their legal fees are. The professional fees charged by lawyers are notorious. When many clients earn an average of $30-50 per hour, it can seem unfair that your lawyers charge you hundreds of dollars per hour. However, as this article will demonstrate, there are reasons why legal fees are so high.
Continue reading “Why are lawyers so expensive?”

Author admin

It is well known that legal fees tend to be expensive. The good news is that as a client there are a number of ways you can reduce your legal fees, as the rest of this article will show.
Continue reading “How you can save on legal fees”