Federal Court of Australia

MacInnes v Wilson [2026] FCA 957

SUMMARY

In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in cases of public interest, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is made to be of assistance in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and does not comprise a complete statement of the path leading to nor the conclusions reached by the Court. To state the obvious, the only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons are those contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be made available on the Court’s website. This summary will also be available on the Court’s website.

The applicant, Ms Charlotte MacInnes, was the lead actor in the film entitled The Deb. The respondent, Ms Rebel Wilson, was a co-star, director and co-producer of that film. Ms Amanda Ghost was the self-described “lead” producer and financier of the film. Ms MacInnes claims that Ms Wilson has defamed her or otherwise breached her confidence. The genesis for the dispute (and about which Ms Wilson commented on Instagram) concerns what happened on 5 September 2023: Ms Ghost (the then 49 year old producer) and Ms MacInnes (the then 25 year old actress) went swimming together at Bondi Beach in the cold early evening and thereafter ended up in the bath at the apartment they were staying at together. To say that the circumstances surrounding how they came to be in the bath are unusual would be an understatement. Relevant to the narrowness of the factual question that the Court ultimately has decided, Ms Wilson alleges (and stated so in her impugned online comments) that Ms MacInnes complained to her the following day (as director and co-producer) of being asked by Ms Ghost to bathe and shower with her and feeling uncomfortable about it. Thereafter, Ms Wilson alleges that Ms MacInnes walked back her complaint.

Ms MacInnes sues in defamation with respect to four publications which Ms Wilson herself or by her agents, published on Instagram:

(a)    on or about 23 September 2024, a series of posts to her @rebelwilson Instagram account;

(b)    on or around 16 May 2025, a series of posts to the @thedebfilm Instagram account;

(c)    later in May 2025, a post to the @thedebfilm Instagram account; and

(d)    about 25 July 2025, a series of posts on her @rebelwilson Instagram account.

Ms MacInnes alleges that the four posts convey 19 imputations. Each of the claimed imputations is set out in the judgment.

Ms Wilson claims variously that the alleged imputations were not conveyed or were not defamatory or if they were, could be justified on the basis that they were substantially true.

As a consequence, the following issues require determination in this proceeding:

(a)    whether the applicable law is the law of Western Australia or the law of New South Wales;

(b)    whether the defamatory imputations pleaded with respect to each Post were carried;

(c)    if the Posts are defamatory and the law of New South Wales applies, whether Ms MacInnes has established, in respect of each matter that the publication of the matter caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation;

(d)    in respect of each matter, has Ms Wilson established that each of the imputations found to have been conveyed and defamatory of Ms MacInnes is substantially true within the meaning of s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) or the Defamation Act 2005 (WA);

(e)    to the extent that Ms Wilson establishes that Ms MacInnes made a complaint about Ms Ghost to Ms Wilson during the production of The Deb, has Ms MacInnes established that there was a breach of confidence?

(f)    where no defence has been made out, whether Ms MacInnes is entitled to damages, including aggravated damages, equitable compensation for breach of confidence and/or injunctive relief.

In summary, for the reasons contained in my judgment I found the following:

(a)    the applicable law is that of New South Wales;

(b)    only one imputation in relation to one matter (the 23 September 2024 Post) is made out, that Ms MacInnes changed her story about feeling uncomfortable about what happened in the bathroom; and

(c)    that imputation is not defamatory.

By reason of these findings, Ms MacInnes’ claim fails and there is no need for me to consider the serious harm element (the next hurdle which must be overcome in a defamation claim). However, it is in the public interest that a trial judge often goes on to consider alternative paths. In this case, whilst not necessary, I determined, given the applicable law is that of New South Wales, whether Ms MacInnes would have been able to establish that the publication of the matter complained of caused or was likely to cause serious harm. Upon my consideration, and making findings with respect to all of the matters relevant to this quandary, Ms MacInnes would have failed to establish that the matter has caused or was likely to cause her reputation serious harm.

As a further alternative, whilst again not necessary to decide, I then turned to consider whether Ms Wilson has justified the matter (namely the substance of the one imputation I found was conveyed), that is, whether she has established on the evidence, that Ms MacInnes changed her story about feeling uncomfortable about what happened in the bathroom. This required me to consider all of the evidence and submissions relevant to the determination of this question. For the reasons set out in my judgment, I have found that Ms Wilson has established that this imputation is substantially true.

Lastly, Ms MacInnes has failed to establish her claim of breach of confidence.

For these reasons, there was no need for me to go on to determine the question of damages.

JUSTICE RAPER

22 July 2026

Sydney