As the actor’s lawyers plan to appeal a failed ruling in a libel case against Hollywood star Rebel Wilson, the lawyer says the judge’s interpretations could potentially lead to a retrial or a different verdict.
Charlotte McInnes, who starred in Ms Wilson’s directorial debut Deb, sued her over a series of social media posts which she claimed damaged her reputation.
The 28-year-old acting school graduate from Western Australia, who thought the role in the film would be her big break, suggested they blamed her for dropping her sexual assault claim for a career opportunity.
Ms McInnes tried to claim general and aggravated damages but lost her case in a court ruling on Wednesday afternoon.
Her lawyers plan to appeal the decision, which is not surprising, according to Stuart O’Connell, senior defamation lawyer at O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors.
“Decisions that the judge had to make, which are general decisions… are often open to debate about whether the judge’s interpretation was correct or not,”
– he said.
Ms Wilson (second from left) won a libel case brought against her by Ms McInnes (centre). (Delivered by: Federal Court of Australia.)
“Very difficult to install”
During two weeks of hearings in late April, the court heard disputed theories about whether Ms McInnes had made a sexual assault complaint against the film’s producer, Amanda Gost, and then withdrawn it, which Ms Wilson had posted online.
Judge Elizabeth Raper on Wednesday dismissed the case in Ms Wilson’s favor because Ms McInnes could not prove the case had caused or was likely to cause serious harm.
Judge Raper found that while one post did make an “accusation” of Ms McInnes, it was not defamatory and that Ms McInnes had made a complaint.
Shortly after the verdict, Ms Wilson wrote on social media that the trial had “tested me” but had also “reinforced what I have always believed in”.
Ms McInnes’ lawyers said she plans to appeal the decision.
They have 28 days to file a notice of intent to appeal.
Ms McInnes (left) with Sue Crisanthu, UK. (ABC News: Abu Bakr Sajid)
Mr O’Connell said three things need to be proven to determine whether something is defamatory:
- The meaning of the words is as possible interpreted by an ordinary, reasonable person.
- The meaning was slanderous and made people think less of someone.
- The publication caused serious damage to the reputation and entailed consequences.
He said libel was “very difficult to establish” and appeals were not uncommon.
“Ultimately, legal arguments are made before three Federal Court judges, and then they decide whether those legal arguments are upheld or not,”
Mr. O’Connell said.
“The judges must consider that, by trying to put herself in the shoes of an ordinary reader, Ms McInnes would argue that an ordinary reader would have found a different meaning to that which the judge found at trial.
“An ordinary reasonable person is one who is of average or average intelligence and education… who is not perverted, morbid, or scandal-hungry.”
He said Ms McInnes would then have to prove the original judge was wrong in saying her reputation had not been seriously damaged.
Mr O’Connell says three things need to be proven to determine whether something is defamatory. (Delivered)
“Ms McInnes can certainly provide more evidence on the issue of serious harm,” Mr O’Connell said.
“But on the question of meaning, what it really comes down to is how the appellate judges interpret the words used by Ms. Wilson.”
Ms. Wilson will have the opportunity to defend herself by demonstrating that the contents are substantially true.
Mr O’Connell said the total cost of the libel case could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“More often than not,” the appellate court may issue a final verdict or remand the case, he said.
Everyone “looks bad”
Rebel Wilson outside one of the hearings in the case, which lasted two weeks. (AAP: Bianca De Marchi)
In delivering her decision, the Federal Court judge described all three women as “unreliable witnesses”.
Judge Raper said the accounts of Ms McInnes and Ms Ghost were “inconsistent” and that both were “unreliable historians”.
She then said Ms Wilson had a “propensity for exaggeration” and that at times “her evidence was self-serving”.
Mr. O’Connell most often said that “everyone involved in a libel trial looks bad.”
“When you read the verdict, no one comes out of it in good condition, and that’s not uncommon.
“Anyone involved in a libel suit will attest to the personal harm this entire process can cause.
“You’re essentially putting your reputation on display for everyone to see.”