find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Beazley Singleton in HC win for restaurant owner

Beazley Singleton in HC win for restaurant owner

BEAZLEY SINGLETON Lawyers and Freehills instructed counsel in John Fairfax Publications’ unsuccessful High Court appeal of a decision that a restaurant review was defamatory.Fairfax appealed a…

BEAZLEY SINGLETON Lawyers and Freehills instructed counsel in John Fairfax Publications’ unsuccessful High Court appeal of a decision that a restaurant review was defamatory.

Fairfax appealed a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal, which overturned a jury decision in their favour against the owners of the Coco Roco restaurant.

Freehills advised Fairfax, and Beazley Singleton Lawyers advised the restaurant owners.

The owners argued a review of their restaurant written by a Sydney Morning Herald food writer, Matthew Evans, soon after the opening of Coco Roco in 2003 had damaged their business reputation.

The Coco Roco restaurant complex, including the Coco fine dining restaurant and Roco bistro, was opened on King Street Wharf in Sydney in 2003 after a $3 million fit-out.

Herald critic Matthew Evans gave the restaurant a score of 9 out of 20 after dining their twice. He said the best thing about the restaurant was the view, but this didn’t make up for the fact that it was expensive, the food unpalatable, and the menu flawed in concept and execution.

The restaurant later closed.

The NSW Supreme Court found four imputations could be seen as defamatory, including (a) Coco Roco’s owners sell unpalatable food, (b) they charge excessive prices, (c) they provide some bad service, and (d) they are incompetent as restaurant owners because they employ a chef who makes poor-quality food.

The jury, however, found (a) and (c) were not defamatory, and (b) and (d) were not “conveyed”.

The NSW Court of Appeal found the jury’s decision was unreasonable on (a) and (c) and remitted a decision on (d) to another jury decision.

In John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and Matthew Evans v Aleksandra Gacic, Ljiljana Gacic and Branislav Ciric, the High Court, in a 6—1 verdict, upheld the Court of Appeal decision and rejected Fairfax and Evans’ argument that the Court of Appeal had exceeded its powers under s 108(3) of the Supreme Court Act to correct unreasonable jury verdicts.

“There was every reason to suppose that the jury, having found that the imputations were conveyed, decided they were not defamatory because of a misunderstanding of what was meant by defamatory,” states the joint decision of Justices Gleeson and Crennan.

They add: “The evidence was bare and undisputed. There were not, as was argued, ‘community standards’, bearing upon the question whether to say that a restaurant has unpalatable food and bad service has a tendency to injure the proprietors in their business, of such a kind as to require the evaluation of a jury. The decision of the Court of Appeal was correct.”

Justice Michael Kirby was the only dissenting judge. He said “community standards” were important.

“I cannot agree that the function of the jury in reflecting ‘community standards’ was somehow immaterial, or of little relevance, to a decision in a case of ‘business defamation’, such as the present,” he states.

“Moreover, on subjects such as a criticism of a restaurant’s food and service, lay jurors are much more likely to reflect community standards than judges, many of whom, like myself, have no special interest in culinary matters, expensive restaurants or cuisine generally. Astonishing as it may seem, judges may occasionally lack a sense of irony or humour.”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Beazley Singleton in HC win for restaurant owner
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Scales of Justice, ALA, right-to-die law
Oct 24 2017
‘Right-to-die’ laws would be a relief for terminally ill: ALA
The passage of an assisted dying bill through the lower house of Victorian Parliament has been haile...
Oct 24 2017
Diversity top of agenda for future WA Law Society president
The advancement of diversity in the Western Australian legal profession will be one of the key items...
Oct 23 2017
How to fail well
The legal profession is due for an attitude adjustment when it comes to perceived failures, accordin...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...