Actor plans to appeal failed Rebel Wilson defamation case. Here's how

Charlotte MacInnes plans to appeal her failed Rebel Wilson defamation case. Here's how Thu 23 Jul 2026 at 7:00am In short: A defamation lawyer says a judge's interpretations of Rebel Wilson's social media posts could be grounds for a retrial or a different verdict. Charlotte MacInnes's lawyers have announced she plans to appeal the failed defamation case against Ms Wilson. A notice of intention to appeal has to be filed within 28 days of a Federal Court's judgement. As lawyers for an actor plan to appeal a failed defamation case outcome against Hollywood star Rebel Wilson, a solicitor says the judge's interpretations could potentially be grounds for a retrial or a different verdict. Charlotte MacInnes who starred in Ms Wilson's directorial debut, The Deb, sued her over a series of social media posts she argued damaged her reputation. The 28-year-old acting school graduate from Western Australia, who thought starring in the film would be her big break, suggested they accused her of taking back a claim of sexual assault for career opportunities. Ms MacInnes tried to claim general and aggravated damages, but lost the case in a judgement on Wednesday afternoon. Her lawyers are planning to appeal the decision, which O'Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors' senior defamation lawyer, Stewart O'Connell, said was not surprising. "The decisions that the judge had to make, which are common decisions … are ones that are often open to arguments about whether the judge's interpretation was correct or not,"he said. 'Very difficult to establish' During two weeks of hearings in late April, the court heard disputed accounts of whether a sexual assault complaint was made by Ms MacInnes against the film's producer, Amanda Ghost, then retracted, which Ms Wilson posted about online. Justice Elizabeth Raper dismissed the case on Wednesday, in favour of Ms Wilson because Ms MacInnes had failed to establish that the matter caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm. Justice Raper did find that although one post did convey an "imputation" about Ms MacInnes, it was not defamatory, and that Ms MacInnes had made the complaint. Ms Wilson posted to social media shortly after the verdict, saying the process had "tested me", but also "reinforced something I've always believed". Lawyers for Ms MacInnes said she planned to appeal the decision. They have 28 days to file a notice of intention to appeal. Mr O'Connell said three things had to be proven to determine whether something was defamatory: - The meaning of the words as possibly interpreted by an ordinary, reasonable person. - The meaning was defamatory and caused people to think less of someone. - The publication caused serious harm to reputation, causing consequences. He said defamation was "very difficult to establish" and appeals were not uncommon. "Ultimately what ends up happening is the legal arguments are made in front of three judges in the Federal Court and then they decide whether those legal arguments are upheld or not,"Mr O'Connell said. "The judges have to decide that by trying to put themselves into the position of the ordinary reader and Ms MacInnes would argue that the ordinary reader would have found a different meaning to the one that the judge found at the trial. "The ordinary reasonable person is someone who has a fair to average intelligence and education … who's not perverse or morbid or avid for scandal." He said Ms MacInnes would then have to argue the original judge was incorrect by saying she had not suffered serious harm to her reputation. "It certainly may be open to Ms MacInnes to bring in more evidence in relation to the issue of serious harm," Mr O'Connell said. "But in relation to the issue of meaning, it really comes down to how the appeal judges interpret the words used by Ms Wilson." Ms Wilson would have the option to defend herself by proving the content was substantially true. Mr O'Connell said the total cost of defamation proceedings could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said "more often than not", the court of appeal could produce a final verdict, or send the case back for a retrial. Everyone 'comes out looking bad' Whilst delivering her judgement, the Federal Court judge described all three women as "unreliable witnesses". Justice Raper said the accounts of Ms MacInnes and Ms Ghost were "inconsistent" and that both were "unreliable historians". She then said Ms Wilson was someone who had "a propensity to exaggerate" and that at times "her evidence was self-serving". Mr O'Connell said more often than not, "everyone involved in a defamation trial comes out looking bad". "When you read the judgement, no one really comes out of it looking good and that's not uncommon." He said "anyone involved in a defamation action would attest to how personally damaging the whole process can be". "You're basically putting your reputation up for public examination."