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 adminPosted on Categories Defamation