Rebel Wilson will need to pay back A$4.1 million (£2.2 million) after her landmark defamation case was appealed.
The magazine publisher Bauer Media was sued by the actress for defamation after they posted a series of articles claiming shed lied about her name, age and upbringing in Sydney and in September 2017 they were fined and told to pay the Hollywood actress A$4.6million (£2.5million).
Wilson confirmed the money would be going to charity.
However, on June 13, Bauer Medias appeal claiming that the pay out was excessive was granted and the figure was slashed to just A$600,000, and on Wednesday the Australian Court of Appeal ordered the Hollywood actress to repay Bauer Media $4,183,071.45 (AUD).
She will also need to pay back $60,316.45 (£33,000) in interest after her argument that interest should be charged at the prevailing Reserve Bank cash rate of 1.5%, rather than the 2% sought by Bauer, was denied.
She will also need to pay back Bauer Medias legal costs.
Wilson wasnt at either hearing, but tweeted her followers to say that she had already won the case and that it was only the amount of damages that had been challenged.
She added though that as she had pledged to donate the money to charity, the ruling to slash the payout was disappointing.
Additionally, Im away on location in Europe filming right now. The Court of Appeal in Australia will be handing down their decision in the morning re my defamation case against @bauermedia . As Ive said before, I have already WON the case and this is UNCHALLENGED!
— Rebel Wilson (@RebelWilson) June 13, 2018
What happens tomorrow is to do with the losers @bauermedia quibbling about how much they now have to pay me. While this case was never about the money for me, I do hope to receive as much as possible to give away to charities and to support the Australian film industry, she said.
When she won the case in September, Rebel told fans that Justice Dixon accepted that Bauer Media subjected me to a sustained and malicious attack timed to coincide with the launch of Pitch 2.
The judge accepted without qualification that I had an extremely high reputation and that the damage inflicted on me was substantial, she wrote.
He said the nature of the aggravated defamation and unprecedented extent of dissemination makes vindication of particular importance. The judge said he knew that the info from anonymous paid source was false and that Bauer Media traded recklessly on my reputation in order to boost its own profits.