The Telegraph reported that a plush waterside restaurant in Australia has finally ended its legal battle over a scathing review by a food critic. The newspaper who have published the food review has been forced to pay $AUS623,526 (£349,000) to settle libel claims.
In 2003, food critic Matthew Evans for the Sydney Morning Herald wrote colorful descriptions of some of the menu items he had tried at Coco Roco. He called the blackberries in his food "soggy," his potatoes "overcooked," his roast chicken "outstandingly dull" and his limoncello oysters that "jangle like a car crash." He then concluded his review by advising readers to stay at home rather than eating at the restaurant.
Describing his pork belly as "the porcine equal of a parched Weetbix (Weetabix)," Evans added, "I've never had pork belly that could almost be described as dry. Until tonight... Why anyone would put apricots in a sherry-scented white sauce with a prime rib steak is beyond me."
Evans gave Coco Roco a 9/20 rating. The Telegraph said six months after Evans gave a poor review of the restaurant, the $AUS3 million (£1.7 million) closed shop. The Bleak House-style defamation lawsuit was later filed, which involved two jury trials, a trial before a judge, two appeals two special leave applications to the High Court and a full High Court hearing.
SMH in the end, had lost the case as the court ruled that the review failed to mentioned that there were two Coco Roco restaurants, and that Evans had eaten at a different unit as oppose to the bistro-style Roco of which he was suppose to review.
"It was open to the [jury] to conclude that an ordinary reasonable reader would have read the matter complained of as referring to both restaurants," the court added.
Justice Peter Hall noted how the lengthy history of the case and the article, which remained published online all throughout the legal battle, had hurt the feelings and the reputation of the owners. He added, "The evidence establishes the defamatory article has remained on the internet apart from one particular year. Such a continued publication over the years exacerbated the injury and hurt by the plaintiffs and had the effect of perpetuating or exacerbating the hurt to feelings and injury to reputation resulting from the defamatory publication."
The New South Wales Supreme Court had ordered the award of $AUS623,526, which are damages and interests, plus costs.
Evans, who no longer is in his profession and has moved to Tasmania around six years ago, expressed his disappointment over the ruling.
