The Justice Illusion !

No wonder so few people use the courts to settle cases where the publication of untrue claims damages their reputation, and in some cases actually  causes a loss of income.  Actress Rebel Wilson took that course when a women's magazine ran a story that depicted her as a serial liar.  She claimed that this adverse publicity caused her to be dropped as the starring role in a coming movie and the court upheld her claim that the magazine knew when they published the article that their claim was untrue.

The judgement handed down was a $4.7 million  defamation payout and this provoked headlines around Australia because it broke records.  Wilson reported that it was a matter of principle rather than money and that she intended to donate the payout to charity. The publisher handed over that $4.7 million promptly and Wilson had the money three weeks after judgement.

Our judicial system consists of an overlapping series of courts of ever increasing seniority.  The magazine publisher has taken the case to a court of appeal and this court has seen fit to vary the payout.  In early June it reduced that $4.7 million to $3.9 million for economic damage related to the loss of income.  It ordered Wilson to repay the publisher $4,183,071.45 - including $60,316.45 interest for the period she was in possession of the money.

One of the reasons so few use the courts to settle disputes is the vagaries that surround court costs and how they will be awarded.  In this instance the appeals court has ruled that Wilson must pay eighty percent of the publishers legal costs and these have yet to be determined.

Wilson does not dispute her need to repay $4.1 million, but she disputes the rate of interest the court has applied for the period the money was in her hands.   This has been calculated at 2% while the Reserve Bank cash rate stands at 1.5%.  Self funded retirees are very aware of the difficulty of achieving interest above that cash rate in the present economic climate.

This case clearly illustrates the hazards of taking court action to redress a wrong.  A court delivered a finding that a published article had been factually wrong and that the magazine editors had known it to be wrong when they proceeded to publication.   Wilson will have her own liability for legal fees arising from her action and now must pay eighty percent of the appeal fees of the magazine that caused her harm, plus an elevated interest rate on the time the money was in her hands.

The case publicity has cleared her name in the public arena, but it may be that it delivers a negative financial result.  The worth of an actor is determined by the movie roles they manage to gain and if that bad publicity caused her to lose a role the public expected her to win her worth had been diminished.   To add insult to injury, the costs now attributed to her by way of interest on that money and the publishers legal fees seriously reduce the compensation intended in that original judgement.

It is a sad fact of life that a lurid story helps sell magazines and this case will do little to compel publishers to keep strictly to the truth.  It also illustrates that you can prove that you have been  defamed, and still walk away with negative compensation.   It is indeed a brave person who seeks redress through the courts !