She is a fantastical liar who has made up terrible allegations
In a Federal Court defamation trial drawing to its close, actress and director Rebel Wilson finds herself accused not merely of carelessness with the truth, but of a deliberate and sustained campaign to recast a younger colleague as a liar and a liability. At stake is something older than celebrity: the question of whether a powerful voice, amplified by social media, can unmake another person's reputation — and what justice looks like when it tries to answer that question.
- Wilson's barrister called her a 'fantastical liar' whose own witnesses contradicted her testimony about a disputed bathroom incident on the set of The Deb.
- The case centers on social media posts Wilson made suggesting co-star Charlotte MacInnes fabricated and then retracted a sexual misconduct complaint — allegations MacInnes says never had any basis in reality.
- A key timeline contradiction emerged: Wilson claimed she reported MacInnes's alleged discomfort to a producer the same day, but that producer testified she heard nothing for another week.
- MacInnes says she has been unable to eat or sleep, has lost career opportunities, and lives in fear of what Wilson might say about her next.
- Closing arguments are now before the Federal Court, with the judge set to rule on both liability and damages in a case that has come to hinge on whose version of reality the court chooses to believe.
In the closing hours of a Federal Court defamation trial, Rebel Wilson faced an accusation more serious than any single falsehood: that she had systematically rewritten events to destroy a younger colleague's credibility. Charlotte MacInnes, the lead actor in The Deb — a musical comedy Wilson directed, produced, and starred in — is suing Wilson over social media posts claiming MacInnes fabricated a sexual misconduct complaint and then retracted it for personal gain.
The incident at the heart of the dispute is almost unremarkable. In September 2023, co-producer Amanda Ghost experienced a medical episode and asked to share a bath with MacInnes, both in swimwear. MacInnes says nothing uncomfortable occurred. Wilson claimed in her posts that MacInnes had confided feeling uneasy and then walked back that complaint. MacInnes denies ever making such a complaint at all.
MacInnes's barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, dismantled Wilson's account in closing arguments, pointing to a critical contradiction: Wilson testified she had told producer Greer Simpkin about MacInnes's alleged discomfort on the very day it was supposedly shared — but Simpkin said she heard nothing of any complaint until a week later. Chrysanthou argued the pattern was deliberate, telling the court that Wilson had lied to drive a wedge between Ghost and MacInnes, and that Wilson's own witnesses had discredited her. 'One can hardly imagine a less sexy environment for some kind of harassment to occur,' she said of the medical episode.
The human cost for MacInnes has been real. She has struggled to eat or sleep, fears further public attacks, and has not worked since securing a stage role before the posts appeared. Wilson, for her part, argued MacInnes had suffered no lasting damage, pointing to a lead role and a six-figure record deal the younger actor has since obtained.
With closing arguments complete, the judge must now determine whether Wilson's posts constituted defamation and, if so, what damages are owed — a ruling that will speak not only to this dispute, but to the broader power of celebrity to reshape reality for those caught in its orbit.
In the closing hours of a defamation trial that has consumed the Federal Court, Rebel Wilson stood accused of something far more damaging than any single lie: a systematic rewriting of events designed to destroy a younger colleague's credibility and career. The accusation came Friday from Sue Chrysanthou SC, the barrister for Charlotte MacInnes, the lead actor in The Deb, a musical comedy that Wilson directed, produced, and starred in. MacInnes is suing Wilson over a series of social media posts that suggested she had fabricated a sexual misconduct complaint and then retracted it to advance her own interests.
The disputed incident at the heart of the case is almost mundane in its ordinariness. In September 2023, Amanda Ghost, a co-producer on the film, experienced a medical episode and asked to share a bath with MacInnes, both in their swimwear. MacInnes says nothing uncomfortable happened. She was simply present while Ghost recovered. But Wilson claimed in her social media posts that MacInnes had confided to her feeling uncomfortable during the encounter, and then walked back that complaint. MacInnes denies ever making such a complaint in the first place.
Chrysanthou's closing argument dismantled Wilson's account piece by piece. She pointed to a fundamental contradiction: Wilson testified she had told local producer Greer Simpkin about MacInnes's alleged discomfort on the very day it was supposedly shared with her. But Simpkin gave evidence that she heard nothing of any complaint until a week later, when Ghost herself mentioned it. This was not an isolated inconsistency. Chrysanthou told the court that Wilson's testimony had been contradicted repeatedly by other witnesses, and that the pattern revealed something deliberate. "She is a fantastical liar who has made up terrible, terrible allegations about multiple people and her own witnesses have discredited her," Chrysanthou said. "We say Ms Wilson cannot be believed on anything she has said."
The barrister argued that Wilson had lied to Ghost specifically to drive a wedge between her and MacInnes, whom Wilson wanted to portray as a troublemaker and liability. A text message Wilson sent to MacInnes, accusing her of leaking information to the film's writer, suggested a campaign to isolate and undermine the younger actor. The actual facts of the bathroom incident, Chrysanthou emphasized, were uncontested: a medical emergency occurred, no one felt uncomfortable, and a witness present thought nothing inappropriate had taken place. "One can hardly imagine a less sexy environment for some kind of harassment to occur – shaking and hives and tea provided by the witness," she told the court.
The human toll of Wilson's posts has been substantial. MacInnes has been unable to eat or sleep. She fears what Wilson might say about her next. She has not worked since securing a stage role before the posts were published. The spotlight that should have illuminated her early career instead cast her in shadow, her reputation damaged by allegations she insists she never made.
Wilson's own testimony offered a starkly different picture. She argued that MacInnes has suffered no real damage, pointing to a lead role and a six-figure record deal the younger actor has since secured. She suggested MacInnes had changed her story and benefited enormously from the dispute. Wilson also testified that before The Deb, MacInnes was relatively unknown and lacked the means to travel internationally in luxury—a detail she claimed to know from photographs sent to her by an "I hate Amanda Ghost fanclub." The implication was clear: MacInnes had done well for herself, and perhaps not entirely through her own talent.
As the trial moved toward its conclusion, Wilson's barrister Dauid Sibtain SC prepared to deliver closing remarks. The judge would ultimately decide whether Wilson's posts constituted defamation, and if so, what damages MacInnes deserved. The case had become less about a disputed bathroom moment and more about competing narratives of truth, intention, and the power of a celebrity's voice to reshape reality for those around her.
Citações Notáveis
She is a fantastical liar who has made up terrible, terrible allegations about multiple people and her own witnesses have discredited her.— Sue Chrysanthou SC, barrister for Charlotte MacInnes
One can hardly imagine a less sexy environment for some kind of harassment to occur – shaking and hives and tea provided by the witness.— Sue Chrysanthou SC, describing the disputed bathroom incident
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the bathroom incident matter so much if nothing actually happened there?
Because Wilson didn't just describe what happened—she claimed MacInnes had complained about it and then lied about complaining. That's not a disagreement about facts. That's an accusation of dishonesty.
And MacInnes says she never complained at all?
Exactly. So Wilson created a false narrative about MacInnes's character. The posts suggested she was someone who makes up misconduct claims for career advantage. That's a specific kind of damage.
The barrister mentioned Wilson lied to Ghost to create division. How does that change things?
It suggests intent. If Wilson simply misremembered, that's one thing. But if she deliberately told Ghost a false story to turn her against MacInnes, that shows she was trying to isolate and discredit a colleague.
Wilson's side says MacInnes has done fine—new roles, record deals. Doesn't that undercut the damage claim?
Not necessarily. The posts came out before those opportunities. And emotional harm—not sleeping, not eating, the fear—that's real regardless of what came after. The question is whether Wilson's lies caused that suffering.
What does the judge actually have to decide?
Whether the posts were defamatory, and if so, how much MacInnes should be compensated. But really, the judge has to decide who's telling the truth about what happened and why.