Charlotte MacInnes is suing Rebel Wilson over social media posts she says defamed her, as a Sydney court heard private texts and emails about a bath incident at the center of the dispute. The case opened with the pair’s conflicting accounts of what happened after a swim in Bondi Beach and one hot bath at a producer’s apartment.
MacInnes, who stars in Wilson’s film The Deb, says the posts in 2024 and 2025 damaged her reputation for integrity and honesty. Wilson had posted about MacInnes feeling uncomfortable after sharing a bath with one of the film’s female producers, and later claimed she had retracted a complaint in exchange for a major theatre role and a record deal.
The court was told the incident began on 5 September 2023, when MacInnes and producer Amanda Ghost went for a late afternoon swim at Bondi Beach and Ghost suffered an allergic reaction known as cold urticaria. Ghost broke out in red welts and shook uncontrollably after the swim, and MacInnes ran a hot bath for her at Ghost’s beachside apartment. Chrysanthou told the court that MacInnes and Ghost both got into the bath wearing their swimsuits and that they were not even touching at all. Ghost’s assistant made hot drinks and sat with them in the bathroom for a short while.
Lawyers for MacInnes said she made no complaint to Wilson about the bath incident. They also said Wilson later used the episode as leverage in a dispute with producers over the film’s budget and contracts. The court saw private texts between Wilson, Ghost and MacInnes on the first day of the case, along with detailed emails about the bath and alleged sexual harassment.
According to Chrysanthou, Wilson spoke to MacInnes the next day about the bath incident and later raised it with Ghost. A couple of days later, MacInnes said Wilson’s account was not what she had said, and Wilson sent a text to Ghost saying, “Charlotte says all good. She just meant ‘it was a bizarre situation’ not that she personally felt uncomfortable.” That night, the group went to a Boy George concert.
The dispute now turns on whether Wilson’s posts were a fair recounting of a complaint or, as MacInnes says, “completely false, fantasy, malicious concoctions.” What the court decides next will shape whether the posts are treated as damaging defamation or as a version of events Wilson was entitled to repeat.
