REALITY TV
TV
MOVIES
MUSIC
CELEBRITY
About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use Accuracy & Fairness Corrections & Clarifications Ethics Code Your Ad Choices
© MEAWW All rights reserved
MEAWW.COM / NEWS / CELEBRITY NEWS

Rebel Wilson awarded $4.5 million in damages over libelous articles

The Bauer Media had published that the actor lied about her age, real name and childhood in order to get into the Hollywood limelight.
UPDATED JAN 23, 2020
Rebel Wilson (Source:Getty Images)
Rebel Wilson (Source:Getty Images)

Rebel Wilson was awarded a hefty compensation after she won a case against an Australian publisher which had taken out articles basically calling the actress a liar.

She was awarded $4.5 million for damages, court fees and interest against Bauer Media, whose publications had defamed Wilson in eight articles by Australian magazines (Bauer Media). She wasn't given a  chance to clear the false allegations.

It was reported that she spent millions for the court cases but a few sources reveal these facts cannot be proven. 

Wilson deserved a chance to deny the allegations calling her a serial liar and an apology after the articles were printed. The Bauer Media published that the actor lied about her age, real name and childhood in order to get into the Hollywood limelight. She was called a serial liar in the libelous articles.

Wilson's barrister Mathew Collins mentioned that her payout figure was conservative considering the Pitch Perfect actress could have taken eight different proceedings – one for each article – and been awarded much more overall.

Collins said Justice Dixon found there was a campaign to “take down” the actress, and when she tried to fight back, the publisher attempted to “neutralize” her responses.

For example, Bauer did not try to get any comment from the actor before publishing the articles. 

During the court appeals, Wilson mentioned that she was positive the court would make the right decision.

“The jury found each of the articles was defamatory and rejected the defendants’ triviality defences,” Dixon wrote in his judgment.

“The sting was serious, likely to be injurious and understood as such by the defendants prior to publication.

POPULAR ON MEAWW
MORE ON MEAWW