May 2026 Federal Court By Mark Stanarevic

On Friday 1 May 2026, evidence concluded in the Federal Court of Australia in MacInnes v Wilson, a defamation proceeding brought by Australian actor Charlotte MacInnes against Hollywood star Rebel Wilson over a series of Instagram posts published to Ms Wilson’s 11 million followers in 2024 and 2025. After nine sitting days, judgment has been reserved. The case is one of the most significant Australian social-media defamation trials of the year and brings into sharp focus the way the 2021 stage one reforms — and the developing case law on serious harm, justification and aggravated damages — now bear on celebrity speech, professional reputation and platform-published material.

This case note sets out the background, the issues the trial judge will need to determine, the principal submissions of each side, and the practical lessons for individuals and businesses navigating the Australian defamation landscape.

Background and facts

The dispute arises from the production and release of The Deb, Ms Wilson’s directorial debut, a musical comedy set in regional New South Wales. Ms MacInnes plays the lead role. The film was substantially completed in late 2023 but its release was delayed for approximately two years amid escalating commercial disputes between Ms Wilson and three financial producers, Amanda Ghost, Gregor Cameron and Vince Holden.

The events at the heart of the case occurred on 5 September 2023. Ms Ghost and Ms MacInnes went swimming together at Bondi Beach. Ms Ghost suffered an allergic reaction to the cold water and returned to her apartment. Ms MacInnes ran her a hot bath. The two women sat in the bath together while wearing their swimsuits and were never in physical contact. The producer’s assistant briefly attended.

Ms Wilson contends that Ms MacInnes confided in her the next day that the bath incident had made her uncomfortable. Ms MacInnes denies ever making any such complaint. Months later, after Ms Wilson’s relationship with the financial producers broke down over budget and contractual issues, Ms Wilson published a series of Instagram posts. Those posts asserted, in effect, that Ms MacInnes had complained of being sexually harassed by Ms Ghost and had subsequently retracted the complaint in exchange for a record deal and a lead theatre role. The posts were available to Ms Wilson’s 11 million Instagram followers for approximately 24 hours each.

On 7 August 2025, Ms MacInnes’s solicitors served a concerns notice on Ms Wilson under the Defamation Act 2005. Proceedings were ultimately commenced in the Federal Court of Australia. The trial began on 20 April 2026 and concluded on 1 May 2026. Sue Chrysanthou SC appeared for the applicant. Dauid Sibtain SC appeared for the respondent.

The pleaded imputations

Ms MacInnes pleads imputations to the effect that she lied about being sexually harassed; that she traded a false sexual harassment complaint for career advancement; that she lacked integrity and honesty; and that she colluded with the producers to obstruct the release of The Deb. Some imputations carry a strong sting of dishonesty and bad faith, calculated to damage her professional standing as an emerging actor and recording artist.

Ms Wilson admits authorship of two of the four posts and the relevant publication, but denies that the remaining posts identify Ms MacInnes. The principal substantive defence is justification under section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 — truth.

Issues for determination

The trial judge will need to decide a familiar but increasingly contested set of issues:

1. Identification

For two of the impugned posts, Ms Wilson denies that the publications identify Ms MacInnes at all. The court will need to apply the established test — whether ordinary reasonable readers acquainted with Ms MacInnes would understand the matter to refer to her: David Syme & Co Ltd v Canavan (1918) 25 CLR 234. In a context where the wider Instagram audience knew Ms MacInnes was the lead in The Deb and the posts referenced “this girl” in the role, identification is likely to be a steep hill for the respondent.

2. Defamatory meaning

The court must decide whether the posts conveyed the imputations pleaded and whether those imputations are defamatory at common law. Imputations of dishonesty — particularly the suggestion of trading a false sexual harassment claim for commercial gain — sit at the more serious end of the defamatory spectrum.

3. Serious harm

Section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005, introduced by the 2021 stage one reforms, requires a plaintiff to prove that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation. The respondent has, on the public record, suggested that the applicant’s career has flourished since the publications: she has secured a US theatre production, a record deal and additional acting work. We discuss the serious harm threshold in detail elsewhere on this site. The applicant will rely on Selkirk v Hocking [2023] FCA 432 and Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249 for the proposition that scale of publication, gravity of the imputation and the nature of the audience are all probative of serious harm. Eleven million followers, even for 24 hours, is a substantial publication footprint.

4. Justification

Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 provides a complete defence where the respondent proves the substantial truth of each defamatory imputation. The respondent need not prove every detail; it is enough to establish the “sting” of the imputation: Howden v Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 416. As we have explored in our analysis of justification in Al Jazeera v Hun Sen, the practical difficulty for a respondent is to muster admissible evidence of facts often known only to those involved. Here, the respondent must persuade the court not only that Ms MacInnes complained, but that she later retracted her complaint specifically to advance her career — a state of mind issue that turns substantially on credibility.

The court has heard evidence from senior producer Greer Simpkin, who described Ms MacInnes as “walking back” the statement and engaging in “some fudging” in a contemporaneous email of 18 September 2023. Conversely, the applicant’s agent has been quoted as saying Ms MacInnes was “not at all uncomfortable” with Ms Ghost. The trial judge will need to make a credit-based finding on a finely balanced factual record.

5. Aggravated damages

The applicant seeks aggravated damages on the basis that Ms Wilson is alleged to have caused or directed a US public-relations agency to publish anonymous “take-down” websites containing further malicious allegations against Ms Ghost. Ms Wilson denies any involvement. Documentary evidence canvassed in court included internal text messages from staff at the public-relations firm. If the court finds the smear-website campaign was conducted at Ms Wilson’s direction, that conduct — together with any maintenance of the truth defence on knowingly false premises — would significantly increase the damages award.

6. Injunctive relief

The applicant seeks final injunctive relief restraining the respondent from republishing the imputations. Final injunctions in defamation are well established at common law; we have written separately on the availability of defamation injunctions at interlocutory and final stages.

Why this matters: practical implications for practitioners and litigants

Social media is publication, full stop

The respondent does not contest publication. Posting to a public Instagram account with 11 million followers, even for a 24-hour story, is a publication of a wholly different magnitude to a single op-ed or newspaper article. The reach, virality and likely downstream republication will be highly relevant both to serious harm and to the eventual quantum of damages. Anyone with a substantial online following should treat their Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok feeds as if they were a national broadcast.

Concerns notices remain the gateway

The proceedings were preceded by a properly drawn concerns notice in August 2025. The 2021 stage one reforms make a concerns notice a condition precedent to defamation proceedings: section 12B of the Defamation Act 2005. As we explain in our concerns notice guide, a notice that fails to identify the imputations with precision can derail the entire claim. Practitioners should not treat the concerns notice as a routine letter: it is the foundation of every subsequent step.

Justification is high stakes

The respondent has chosen to defend on truth. Justification is the most powerful defence in the Act — if it succeeds, the imputation is repeated with judicial authority. If it fails, particularly where the respondent is alleged to have known the truth all along, the failure tends to aggravate damages. The decision to plead justification on a state-of-mind imputation is always a high-risk strategy.

Smear campaigns multiply liability

Allegations that Ms Wilson directed a third party to publish anonymous attack websites have featured prominently in the trial. As we discussed in our analysis of anonymous online defamation, the use of pseudonymous platforms does not insulate a publisher from liability where the chain of authorship can be evidentially traced. Text messages, email chains and PR-firm invoices are routinely subpoenaed and often prove decisive.

Serious harm is a real hurdle — but reach helps

Section 10A is no longer a theoretical filter. The cases since 2021 have shown that respondents will argue serious harm is not made out where the applicant’s career has continued. Applicants need to plead and prove serious harm with care: by reference to scale of publication, gravity of imputations, the audience addressed, and downstream consequences such as withdrawal of opportunities, reputational fallout among industry peers, and emotional impact. In MacInnes v Wilson, the sheer scale of the audience is likely to be a powerful factor in the applicant’s favour.

Costs follow the event — and dwarf the damages

A nine-day trial with leading silks on both sides will produce costs in the high six figures, possibly into seven. As we set out in our cost of a defamation case guide, parties contemplating defamation litigation must understand that costs frequently exceed any damages award. Strategic decisions about offers to make amends, Calderbank offers and early mediation can radically reduce the eventual exposure.

What to expect from judgment

Judgment is reserved. In a complex defamation trial of this length and intricacy, a written judgment within three to six months is realistic, although shorter or longer is possible. The judgment is likely to be lengthy, with detailed credit findings on the bath incident, the September 2023 communications and the smear-website allegations. Whichever way it falls, MacInnes v Wilson will become a leading authority on social-media defamation by high-profile publishers, the operation of the serious harm threshold under section 10A, and the dangers of pleading justification on credibility-driven facts.

How Matrix Legal can help

Matrix Legal acts for individuals, businesses and public figures across Australia in significant defamation matters. Whether you have been defamed on social media to an audience of thousands or millions, or you have published material and received a concerns notice, the choices made in the first 28 days are usually decisive. We advise on:

Mark Stanarevic, principal lawyer at Matrix Legal, personally reviews every case assessment. To discuss your matter in confidence, request a free assessment or call 1800 950 627.

This article is general information and not legal advice. Defamation risk turns on the precise words used, the publication context, the audience, and available evidence.