Hollywood star Rebel Wilson has had her defamation payout slashed from $4.5 million to $600,000 after magazine publisher Bauer Media successfully appealed.
The judgment, handed down by the Court of Appeal in Melbourne on Thursday, means the Pitch Perfect actress will receive about $3.9 million less than she had originally been awarded.
The high-profile defamation suit was over a number articles, published in 2015, which made Wilson out to be a serial liar.
Wilson claimed she lost film roles as a result of the articles and in September she was awarded the largest defamation payout in Australian legal history.
Supreme Court Justice John Dixon awarded her a record $4.5 million, including $3.9 million in economic damages relating to a loss of income.
But Bauer Media appealed and the Woman’s Day publisher had a major win on Thursday.
In November Rebel explained to Sunday Night why she decided to take Bauer Media to court. Post continues.
The Court of Appeal found there was no basis for Wilson to be awarded financial damages for the potential loss of roles, setting aside the economic damages entirely.
Wilson was not present for the judgment but she took to Twitter the night before, saying she had already won the case.
“I’m away on location in Europe filming right now,” she tweeted on Wednesday night.
“As I’ve said before, I have already won the case and this is unchallenged!
“This case was never about the money for me.”
Wilson, who starred in the Pitch Perfect films as well as How To Be Single and and Bridesmaids, has said she will give away the damages to charity and to support the Australian film industry.
Bauer Media did not challenge the jury’s defamation finding in its appeal and sought only for the damages to be reduced.
The Court of Appeal is yet to determine costs.
Top Comments
This has blown me away. I thought the whole purpose of the court case was for lost earnings as a result of the articles. And as such, this would set a precedent for any future possible defamatory actions. Very disappointed.
Bauer Media came awful close to being held accountable for their actions for a second there.
I've been reading a few articles on this. I can't seem to figure if the judge didn't accept that there was sufficient evidence of loss of earnings, or if they didn't believe such compensation should be awarded under Australian law?
Which i am sure they are insured for anyway.