Bad restaurant review defamatory, court rules

[sapi]

Can anyone see any sense in that ruling?

[Odin]

Well yes, defamation is causing unjustified injury to the reputation of another. The "unjustified" part is whats subjective, as well as the injury I suppose, but if this reviewer hurt thier business then they have a case.

Shouldnt have won though, as the jury was right, but judges from time to time like crosses to bare.

[Incongruous]

Another rather silly abuse of the justice system.
That's what reviews do. Damn imagine if Empire got sued every time it gave a, Nicholas Cage movie two stars. Boy am I glad of those two stars.
I mean what the heck?!

[sapi]

Well, that's all fine, but such a ruling has the potential to effect a lot of things - taken down to the simplest level, it's saying that if you dont' like a review that you get, just sue the reviewer...and win

Another rather silly abuse of the justice system.
That's what reviews do. Damn imagine if Empire got sued every time it gave a, Nicholas Cage movie two stars. Boy am I glad of those two stars.
I mean what the heck?!

[Odin]

Well, that's all fine, but such a ruling has the potential to effect a lot of things - taken down to the simplest level, it's saying that if you dont' like a review that you get, just sue the reviewer...and win

I dont agree with it, but you asked about the sense of the ruling, from the restauranter's point of view his business was damaged by the review. Its therefore his obligation to prove the reviewers intent, which he didnt.

The initial jury findings should not have been overturned by the appeals court, yes that can effect a lot of things. I suspect that this has a bit more legal life left in it, overturning jury verdicts usually has some review process after the fact.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Possible result:

All rest'nt critics will be dropped and their "Lifestyles" section column inches replaced with more tawdry tidbits about the salacious lives of x,y or z celebrity.

News organs will not risk lawsuits over such issues, as it is not cost effective.


Pity, rest'nt critics, on the whole, are less pretentious and out of touch than their film/theatre counterparts. Of course, I suppose, they'd be next...

[Blodrast]

It's ridiculous, just like sapi points out: so now nobody can write a negative review about a restaurant, because they'll get sued... So much for objectivity and staying informed...

Look, if the place is actually good, and the guy just lied about it, people will still go there, they'll spread the word, the paper will get lots of angry letters telling the author he's full of it and biased against the place, etc...

Yes, another abuse of the judicial system - you say something negative about something - get sued pronto!
Why don't we stop album, movies, sports matches, games etc reviews ? After all, they might cause damage to the producers of those items...

[Odin]

Look, if the place is actually good, and the guy just lied about it, people will still go there, they'll spread the word, the paper will get lots of angry letters telling the author he's full of it and biased against the place, etc...

Devils advocate here. What if the place is actually good, and the guy just lied about it and it goes belly up and the owner looses his 3million investment?

Tough luck?

Intent, while it wasnt proven in this case, is the crux of slander and defamation cases.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't want our sue-happy times to endanger fair and unbiased criticism. I can't afford to test every restaurant/movie/whatever myself, and depend on others to give me some insights into whether it's worth experiencing. The points cited as defamatory sound like perfectly reasonable things I would expect a disappointed critic to say, and the jury found that the critique was not defamatory. If they want to improve business, they can improve their quality rather than suing their critics.


Ajax

[Blodrast]

Devils advocate here. What if the place is actually good, and the guy just lied about it and it goes belly up and the owner looses his 3million investment?

Tough luck?

Intent, while it wasnt proven in this case, is the crux of slander and defamation cases.

Sure, no problem with playing devil's advocate (isn't that a tautology, btw ? ).
Well, there's two issues with that:
1. If the guy indeed lied (which is perfectly possible), like I said in my post, I'd expect a whole bunch of angry letters/emails/comments on that magazine's web site from other (happy) customers, which would either get published (e.g., they'll be publicly available on the website, etc), or would cause the chief editor or whatever to publish another article apologising etc, etc.

2. I find it very, very hard to believe that one or two reviews in some paper will make or break a restaurant. There's a LOT more inertia than just that. Things like that happen over at the very least months and months of staying in business (if not years), not everybody reads that paper, not everybody who reads it agrees with it, not everybody who reads it takes it into account when they pick a restaurant.
There's soooooo many factors when deciding on a restaurant - prices, location (both its location, and how close/far it is away from you), menu (chinese/indian/thai/italian/french), company (whether you're going there with wifey for a romantic dinner, or is it a business lunch, or out with the guys, etc), etc.
A review in a paper is definitely not a maker or breaker. It's just information, and I believe that this verdict precludes me from having access to that kind of information, which is NOT to my benefit - but, of course, it would be to the benefit of owners of eating establishments all over, who no longer would have to worry about the quality of their establishment, because nobody will dare criticize it anymore...

[Martok]

I don't want our sue-happy times to endanger fair and unbiased criticism. I can't afford to test every restaurant/movie/whatever myself, and depend on others to give me some insights into whether it's worth experiencing. The points cited as defamatory sound like perfectly reasonable things I would expect a disappointed critic to say, and the jury found that the critique was not defamatory. If they want to improve business, they can improve their quality rather than suing their critics.


Ajax

I concur. Well put Ajax.

[Lord Winter]

Well, the corroupt politcians will be happy. You could veiw this ruling as a way to go after those peskey newspapers that exposed there crimes and thus ended there carrers.

[Xiahou]

This seems like a good place to mention the story about the US judge who is suing a drycleaner $54 million for misplacing his pants.

Between these and other stories, I feel I can safely say that lawsuits are completely out of hand in our country. The question is, how to fix it?

[Whacker]

The question is, how to fix it?

Someone needs to find that judge his pants, STAT!

[Lemur]

Between these and other stories, I feel I can safely say that lawsuits are completely out of hand in our country.

You do know that the originating story is from Australia, right?

And if you can't sue your pants, who can you sue?

[sapi]

Devils advocate here. What if the place is actually good, and the guy just lied about it and it goes belly up and the owner looses his 3million investment?

Tough luck?

Intent, while it wasnt proven in this case, is the crux of slander and defamation cases.

Considering that Matthew Evans, the critic in question, has been around for as long as I can remember, I don't see that that's too likely

[English assassin]

Hard to tell without seeing the exact wording of the review. "Serves packet soup" would probably be defamatory. "Soup tasted like packet soup" would not be.

Also, strictly, a statement being untrue is not an element of the tort of defamation. (To put that in English, a statement may be true, and still defamatory.) Justification (ie truth) is a defence. Its not clear whether that issue was ever put to the jury or whether the case when off on a preliminary submission that the words were incapable of being defamatory, and that issues of justification were never considered.

I'll get back to work now.

[Odin]

Considering that Matthew Evans, the critic in question, has been around for as long as I can remember, I don't see that that's too likely

I dont think its likely either, but Im not an appeals court judge.

[Odin]

[QUOTE=Blodrast]

1. If the guy indeed lied (which is perfectly possible), like I said in my post, I'd expect a whole bunch of angry letters/emails/comments on that magazine's web site from other (happy) customers, which would either get published (e.g., they'll be publicly available on the website, etc), or would cause the chief editor or whatever to publish another article apologising etc, etc.

Well thats fine but that dosent apply to this case. Source:

Coco Roco at Sydney's Darling Harbour has closed but the proprietors will now have a further opportunity to seek damages from Sydney Morning Herald publisher John Fairfax Publications.
The Coco Roco restaurant complex - comprising the fine dining Coco and the Roco bistro - opened at King Street Wharf on Darling Harbour in Sydney in 2003 after a $3 million fit-out.

Accordingly, the owner sued that the review as part of the cause for his loss. Thats the crucial factor here, the resturanter had real losses, now whether that was caused by a bad review or not is suspect, but thats why I claim he has to prove intent only. Its beyond an editorial correction.

2. I find it very, very hard to believe that one or two reviews in some paper will make or break a restaurant. There's a LOT more inertia than just that. Things like that happen over at the very least months and months of staying in business (if not years), not everybody reads that paper, not everybody who reads it agrees with it, not everybody who reads it takes it into account when they pick a restaurant.

Oh I agree, its silly to think that one or two reviews will break a restaurant, but will it contribute to the breech?

A review in a paper is definitely not a maker or breaker. It's just information, and I believe that this verdict precludes me from having access to that kind of information, which is NOT to my benefit - but, of course, it would be to the benefit of owners of eating establishments all over, who no longer would have to worry about the quality of their establishment, because nobody will dare criticize it anymore...

Yes a win for establishment owners, but source:

The owners then appealed, arguing that what the jury found was unreasonable. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that it was defamatory to say the food was unpalatable and the service bad

Is likely correct, as is public critique of another because slander is the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:.

The arguing point seems to be "unjustified" its justifiable to print unflaterring reviews of establishments, but stating that

half the dishes unpalatable

is pretty darn close to slander, unless its taken in the spirit of crticism only and not an attempt to injure the reputation.

[Blodrast]

Quote:
1. If the guy indeed lied (which is perfectly possible), like I said in my post, I'd expect a whole bunch of angry letters/emails/comments on that magazine's web site from other (happy) customers, which would either get published (e.g., they'll be publicly available on the website, etc), or would cause the chief editor or whatever to publish another article apologising etc, etc.

Well thats fine but that dosent apply to this case. Source:
Quote:
Coco Roco at Sydney's Darling Harbour has closed but the proprietors will now have a further opportunity to seek damages from Sydney Morning Herald publisher John Fairfax Publications.
The Coco Roco restaurant complex - comprising the fine dining Coco and the Roco bistro - opened at King Street Wharf on Darling Harbour in Sydney in 2003 after a $3 million fit-out.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid you lost me here, what exactly doesn't apply to this case ? I mean, I don't see how your reply connects with my quote above it...

Accordingly, the owner sued that the review as part of the cause for his loss. Thats the crucial factor here, the resturanter had real losses, now whether that was caused by a bad review or not is suspect, but thats why I claim he has to prove intent only. Its beyond an editorial correction.

Ok, I understand what you're saying, and I heartily disagree with it. I mean, this opens up a whole can of worms, and leads us to a very dangerous road that I don't think we should be going down to: any critique, or any negative comment, on anything, is (one of the) cause (s) of failure. C'mon! We're getting into the realm or ridiculousness!
*I* think that if the owner sues and claims the report was cause of his loss, *he* should prove that this was the case.
Should I sue every prof who didn't give me an A+, because that was part of the cause I ended up on welfare ?
Should I sue my boss/coworkers who didn't give me a brillian review at work, because that meant I didn't get a raise, and I wasn't able to cover the medical bills for my mom, who died in horrible pain ?
I know you're playing devil's advocate, but there's a limit for what's reasonable and what's not, just like the infamous suing-McDonald's-for-delivering-hot-beverages when I'm an idiot and spill it and burn myself. This is exactly like that, every bit as ridiculous, or worse.

Oh I agree, its silly to think that one or two reviews will break a restaurant, but will it contribute to the breech?

I claim we cannot quantify it one way or the other, and therefore this is a non-issue, which shouldn't have even been brought to court.
Again, judging by this precedent, I'll sue everybody who ever gave me a cross look, because that ruined my day, which in turn led me to lose my job, which in turn... You can never prove such causal chains, it's ridiculous.


As for "half the dishes unpalatable", let's switch roles. *I*'ll play devil's advocate now.
I'll readily admit that I know nothing about how restaurant reviewers work, and go about reviewing restaurants. But I'll tell you what I've done several times. For example, my aunt & uncle & cousin come visit me sometimes. We all go have a nice dinner somewhere in some restaurant. What we usually do is order 4-5 dishes, we don't get them on *our* plates - rather, we leave them on those plates, and only take a bit of each dish, and put that on our plate. This way we get to sample all 4-5 of the dishes, and of course it's more decent and polite to do it this way, as opposed to a certain dish being "my" dish, and people taking stuff out of *my* plate, especially after I slobbered all over it.
Well, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Ok, now that I've explained what I'm referring to, picture this scenario: guy goes there, and does a similar thing. He went there several times, IIRC, right ? Like 2-3 times ? Maybe he went with a friend or two, or his family. Now multiply 2-3 with 4-5, and you get over ten or a dozen dishes. Isn't it possible that that represents roughly half of their dishes ?
And when I say "dishes", I mean actual dishes, not salads, appetizers, coke, or bagels.
Dunno how large the establishment's menu was, but 24-30 dishes seems perfectly ok to me, in my experience. So he might have actually sampled roughly half of the dishes, and therefore his statement is perfectly accurate.


edit: Another thing is, I believe the onus is on the owner to prove that the guy's intent was slander, and not just "fair" criticism. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

[Xiahou]

You do know that the originating story is from Australia, right?

Bah, I stand by my point!

[Odin]

I'm sorry, I'm afraid you lost me here, what exactly doesn't apply to this case ? I mean, I don't see how your reply connects with my quote above it...

My point was to illistrate the loss of the 3 million he put in, in contrast to your proposed solution of angry letters by happy customers. It turns out that the establishment went out of business, so the angry letters would be moot.

Sorry for the confusion, I posted the quote from the story to show the financial impact of the loss.

Ok, I understand what you're saying, and I heartily disagree with it. I mean, this opens up a whole can of worms, and leads us to a very dangerous road that I don't think we should be going down to: any critique, or any negative comment, on anything, is (one of the) cause (s) of failure. C'mon! We're getting into the realm or ridiculousness!

Well unless its slander, then I do believe its a crime. Its one thing to critique someone, you and I could do it to one another all evening, but there is no real monetary damage, in this case it was. The realm of ridiculousness might be that he chose to sue on reviewer, who stated that his food was unpalatable.

If taken literally, unpalatable could be libelous and cause injury if it effect customers (which is part of his claim). Unless its true, but the article didnt cite evidence of customers making that claim.

*I* think that if the owner sues and claims the report was cause of his loss, *he* should prove that this was the case.
Should I sue every prof who didn't give me an A+, because that was part of the cause I ended up on welfare ?

Again intent, if the professor dosent give you a proper grade out of malice and it causes you injury, and you can prove malice and injury (monetary loss) you might have a case.

Certainly after this case, if your in Australlia, you do

I claim we cannot quantify it one way or the other, and therefore this is a non-issue, which shouldn't have even been brought to court.
Again, judging by this precedent, I'll sue everybody who ever gave me a cross look, because that ruined my day, which in turn led me to lose my job, which in turn... You can never prove such causal chains, it's ridiculous.

Well your example is ridiculous as applied to law, I agree.

As for "half the dishes unpalatable", let's switch roles. *I*'ll play devil's advocate now.
I'll readily admit that I know nothing about how restaurant reviewers work, and go about reviewing restaurants. But I'll tell you what I've done several times. For example, my aunt & uncle & cousin come visit me sometimes. We all go have a nice dinner somewhere in some restaurant. What we usually do is order 4-5 dishes, we don't get them on *our* plates - rather, we leave them on those plates, and only take a bit of each dish, and put that on our plate. This way we get to sample all 4-5 of the dishes, and of course it's more decent and polite to do it this way, as opposed to a certain dish being "my" dish, and people taking stuff out of *my* plate, especially after I slobbered all over it.
Well, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Ok, now that I've explained what I'm referring to, picture this scenario: guy goes there, and does a similar thing. He went there several times, IIRC, right ? Like 2-3 times ? Maybe he went with a friend or two, or his family. Now multiply 2-3 with 4-5, and you get over ten or a dozen dishes. Isn't it possible that that represents roughly half of their dishes ?
And when I say "dishes", I mean actual dishes, not salads, appetizers, coke, or bagels.
Dunno how large the establishment's menu was, but 24-30 dishes seems perfectly ok to me, in my experience. So he might have actually sampled roughly half of the dishes, and therefore his statement is perfectly accurate.

Well yes he may be perfectly accurate, and a jury thought at least it wasnt slander, but hey if I saw you slobering over 4-5 dishes, it might effect my appetite, souring my meal, and effecting the company I was with.

I might be inclined to sue you in that case, please request the corner booth in the future (I got your point mate...)

Interesting discussion though, Im done playing devils advocate, you win !

[Blodrast]

My point was to illistrate the loss of the 3 million he put in, in contrast to your proposed solution of angry letters by happy customers. It turns out that the establishment went out of business, so the angry letters would be moot.

Sorry for the confusion, I posted the quote from the story to show the financial impact of the loss.

Okay, now I understand what you meant. I also apparently didn't make it clear what I was trying to say: I didn't refer to the letters from the customers as a solution, but rather as a symptom - in case he was lying, and the restaurant was actually ok, then I would have expected that (the letters) to happen. This isn't a solution to anything, it would have simply proven he was lying through his teeth. Reversing the logic statement, if the latter didn't happen, then probably the hypothesis was false.

Look, I'm not saying that if he was lying then definitely, absolutely, the letters would have come in. I can't "prove" that, I just find that likely to have happened. So I'm not "making a legal argument" here.

If taken literally, unpalatable could be libelous and cause injury if it effect customers (which is part of his claim). Unless its true, but the article didnt cite evidence of customers making that claim.

Well, I personally don't find the word "unpalatable" libelous, but since I'm not a lawyer, I won't try to argue that point.

I understand your point about the financial loss; however, I am personally not convinced that was caused by the review. It is possible that the poor review was a consequence of the fact that the food/service sucked, and the bankruptcy was also a consequence of the same thing.
Again, I'm not making a legal argument here, but I would think that the restaurant owner should prove the causality relation if he sues the reviewer...

Interesting discussion though, Im done playing devils advocate, you win !

Not at all, my friend. It's about discussing, not about winning - nobody wins, nobody loses. We share our opinions, and hopefully everybody gets some new insights by the end of the discussion - so, ideally, everybody wins.
So I thank you for the discussion.

[seireikhaan]

Wow, am I the only person who's really concerned by this? I mean what's next? Is Steven Colbert going to be sued by George Bush because he refers to him as incompetent? Will we get to the point where we can't even critisize the government because, in the governments eyes, we're defaming them? Maybe I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I think this is a terrible decision to rule in favor of the restaurant. The government could squelch any protest or negative press or dissenting views by threatening to sue anyone who tries to air it and use this case as evidence. I realize this is Australia and not the US and therefore it doesn't directly impact our court cases. However, some restauarant in the US or the UK or anywhere could look at this and try the same stunt. And if they win, we're leading ourselves to dictatorship. Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist who's rambling on and on...

[Odin]

Wow, am I the only person who's really concerned by this? I mean what's next? Is Steven Colbert going to be sued by George Bush because he refers to him as incompetent?

It depends on if he can prove his intent, and if that intent was to harm Mr Bushes reputation, yep he would have a case in U.S. law. Fortunately we have lots of rules that allow columnists to give opinions so forth, but if it causes injury(by way of financial loss) thats illegal

The government could squelch any protest or negative press or dissenting views by threatening to sue anyone who tries to air it and use this case as evidence. I realize this is Australia and not the US and therefore it doesn't directly impact our court cases. However, some restauarant in the US or the UK or anywhere could look at this and try the same stunt. And if they win, we're leading ourselves to dictatorship.

Well given the checks and balances of government this is unlikely, however you wish to slice it, libel, slander, defamation (when proven) are crimes.

Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist who's rambling on and on...

Maybe?