Background
Ms Charlotte MacInnes, the lead actor in the film “The Deb,” sued her co-star, director, and co-producer Ms Rebel Wilson. The lawsuit alleged defamation and breach of confidence arising from an incident on 5 September 2023 involving Ms MacInnes and a film producer, Ms Amanda Ghost, where they went swimming and subsequently ended up in a bath together. Ms MacInnes claimed she felt uncomfortable and complained to Ms Wilson.
Ms Wilson later published a series of posts on her Instagram accounts, alleging that Ms MacInnes had initially complained about the producer’s conduct but then “walked back” her story. Ms MacInnes contended that these posts were defamatory and that Ms Wilson had breached her confidence. Ms Wilson, in turn, denied the imputations were defamatory and asserted they were substantially true.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Raper J, dismissed both of Ms MacInnes’ claims for defamation and breach of confidence. The court first determined that New South Wales law was the applicable jurisdiction for the defamation claim, necessitating that Ms MacInnes establish “serious harm” to her reputation.
The court found that only one imputation from the Instagram posts was conveyed: that Ms MacInnes changed her story about feeling uncomfortable regarding the incident with the producer. However, the court explicitly ruled that this imputation was not defamatory, as it did not sufficiently lower Ms MacInnes’ reputation in the eyes of ordinary reasonable people. Furthermore, even if the imputation were defamatory, Ms MacInnes failed to prove that the publication caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation. The court also concluded that Ms Wilson had successfully justified the imputation, meaning it was substantially true.
Key Takeaways
- Under Australian defamation law (specifically NSW), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defamatory publication caused or was likely to cause “serious harm” to their reputation.
- Courts interpret social media posts impressionistically, acknowledging their casual and fast-moving nature, and avoiding overly elaborate analysis.
- An allegation of merely “changing one’s story,” without further context implying serious misconduct or reputational damage, may not meet the threshold for a defamatory statement.
- The determination of the applicable law in multi-jurisdictional defamation cases focuses on where the harm occasioned by the publication has its closest connection, often linked to where the plaintiff’s professional reputation was primarily established.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar for successfully pursuing defamation claims in Australia, particularly following legislative amendments that introduced the “serious harm” threshold. It offers significant guidance on how courts assess the meaning and impact of social media content in defamation proceedings, favoring an impressionistic understanding over a detailed legalistic interpretation. The ruling also clarifies important conflict of laws principles, emphasizing the significance of the plaintiff’s professional nexus and the location of likely reputational harm in determining the governing law.
The case suggests that allegations of inconsistency or changing one’s narrative, absent other factors, may not automatically be deemed defamatory, contributing to the evolving jurisprudence around online speech and reputation.