The Federal Court of Australia has ruled in favour of Rebel Wilson, dismissing the defamation case brought against her by actor Charlotte MacInnes. Justice Elizabeth Raper found that MacInnes failed to prove the social media posts in question caused, or were likely to cause, serious harm — the legal threshold required under Australian defamation law. The Guardian

Justice Raper delivered her judgment on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, about two months after closing arguments were heard in May. The trial began on April 20, 2026, with testimony spread across that month, including a third day of evidence on April 30. The court had set up a dedicated online file for the case (NSD1727/2025) by May 11. The Guardian; Federal Court of Australia

MacInnes, who starred in The Deb — Wilson's first film as a director — sued over a series of social media posts Wilson shared with her roughly 11 million followers. MacInnes argued the posts implied she was a liar and a sellout who had withdrawn a sexual harassment complaint to advance her career. The Guardian

The posts at the centre of the dispute alleged that MacInnes had told Wilson she felt uncomfortable when co-producer Amanda Ghost asked her to share a bath and shower, and that MacInnes later retracted the complaint. MacInnes denied ever making or withdrawing such a complaint. She said she was not uncomfortable when she and Ghost shared a bath — in swimwear — after Ghost experienced a medical episode in September 2023. The Guardian

The case also involved third-party media coverage. The Daily Mail published an article about the dispute on September 23, 2024, under the headline 'Actress at centre of defamation suit against Rebel Wilson is REVEALED as drama from Australian…'. Wilson reposted that article on her social media accounts. During the trial, an email chain between Wilson and Danny Cohen was entered into evidence as Exhibit A9. Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia

MacInnes had sought general damages, aggravated damages, and damages for breach of confidence — a legal claim that someone has misused private information shared in trust. She said the harm she suffered included anxiety and a period without work. Her legal team was led by Sue Chrysanthou SC, while Wilson was represented by Dauid Sibtain SC. ABC News; The Guardian

Both sides filed structured documents with the court. The parties submitted a Statement of Agreed Facts and an Agreed Statement of Issues for Determination, the latter filed on March 17, 2026. MacInnes filed a redacted affidavit — a written statement of evidence — on December 10, 2025. Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia

The ruling turned on a specific requirement in Australian defamation law: a claimant must prove that the published material caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm. In this case, the court found that bar was not met. Think of it as a gate a claimant must pass through before the merits of the dispute are even examined. MacInnes could not produce enough concrete evidence of serious harm, and that failure ended the case — regardless of the underlying disagreements about what happened between her and Ghost.

The broader context here matters for how similar cases may unfold. Legal practitioners will likely read this judgment as a reaffirmation that serious harm must be shown with tangible evidence, not simply inferred from the size of someone's audience or how sensitive the allegations are. The dismissal of the breach of confidence claim alongside the defamation claim also narrows the legal routes available when disputes about conduct on a film set spill over onto social media.