Rebel Wilson defamation case ruling appealed by MacInnes
Charlotte MacInnes has appealed her defeat in the rebel wilson defamation case, challenging a Federal Court of Australia finding that Rebel Wilson’s Instagram posts were not defamatory and did not cause serious harm. She filed her notice of appeal one day after Justice Elizabeth Raper dismissed her claims in Sydney.
Key Takeaways
- MacInnes appealed after losing defamation and breach-of-confidence claims against Wilson over Instagram posts.
- Justice Elizabeth Raper found the posts were not defamatory and did not cause serious reputational harm.
- MacInnes wants the Full Court to set aside the ruling, grant a new trial, or reverse the costs order.
- The appeal does not itself overturn Raper’s judgment, which remains in place unless stayed or reversed.
What happened in the Rebel Wilson defamation case?
MacInnes, lead actor in Wilson’s feature directorial debut The Deb, sued over four sets of Instagram posts published between September 2024 and July 2025. She argued the posts portrayed her as dishonest and suggested she had withdrawn an account of feeling uncomfortable during an encounter with producer Amanda Ghost to secure professional opportunities.
Raper dismissed the defamation and breach-of-confidence claims in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney and ordered MacInnes to pay Wilson’s legal costs. Wilson later called the outcome a “substantial win.” For more entertainment legal alerts, see our Streaming & TV Alerts hub.
Why is Charlotte MacInnes challenging the ruling?
According to Variety, citing reports on MacInnes’ notice of appeal, she is asking the Full Court of the Federal Court to set aside Raper’s ruling and enter judgment in her favor. As alternatives, she seeks a new trial or determination of remaining issues by a different judge, and wants the costs order overturned.
The appeal argues Raper erred in assessing meanings from the Instagram posts. Raper found only one alleged meaning was conveyed—by Wilson’s Sept. 23, 2024, post—that MacInnes had changed her account of feeling uncomfortable about what happened with Ghost in a bathroom. The judge held that meaning was not defamatory, that serious harm was not shown, and, alternatively, that Wilson proved the meaning was substantially true.
MacInnes’ lawyers challenge each conclusion, dispute Raper’s assessment of Wilson’s credibility, and raise procedural-fairness arguments. Those appeal grounds have not been decided by the Full Court.
What sparked the dispute behind the posts?
The conflict traces to September 2023, when MacInnes and Ghost swam at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, then later entered a bath together in swimwear after Ghost reacted to cold water. Wilson said MacInnes told her the next day the incident made her uncomfortable and later changed her account. MacInnes denied making such a complaint and said she had not felt uncomfortable.
Raper found on the balance of probabilities that MacInnes had felt uncomfortable, said something to Wilson, and later stepped back from that position. The judge did not find Ghost’s behavior was sexual or amounted to sexual harassment, noting the court was not asked to decide whether the incident had a sexualized dimension.
Does the appeal change the current court orders?
No. Filing the appeal does not set aside Raper’s judgment. Her orders remain in force unless they are stayed or overturned by the Full Court. Variety reported it has reached out to Wilson’s publicist for comment.