Thursday, February 08, 2007
The end of restaurant reviews?
Belfast is awash with libel writs at the best of times, but, we understand, that none have made it to open court in ten years. Not so now. One Belfast restaurant has today successfully sued the Irish News for a review by celebrated restaurant critic, Caroline Workman, who gave it a rating of one mark out of a possible five. The action has cost the paper a cool £25,000 and two weeks in court. Which, potentially, makes reviewing restaurants a potentially ruinous business.
PA have more details...
Mick Fealty @ 05:12 PM
it’s Goodfellas on Kennedy Way ffs, not a 5 start michelin diner. seems crazy to me - so what now? no movie reviews? no book reviews? crazy.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 05:36 PMIf it had been Deanes 1 out of 5 most certainly would be deserved.....
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 05:38 PMThis is really strange when the restaurant owner didn’t claim that he had suffered any financial loss. Presumably the jury was acting on instructions from the judge. With so much bad blood between the press and judiciary right now after the Lord Chief Justice’s attack on the media last year, is the local bench really impartial when it comes to libel actions?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 05:39 PMThat seems strange- surely people are entitled to fair comment. Fair enough if the review was completely out of order (and maybe it was), but in general it does society no favours when critics are walking on eggshells lest they find themselves the subject of court action for being honest. Perhaps restaurants and entertainment venues are too used to the brainless fawning that some ‘critics’ heap upon them, regardless of the actual quality of what they have to offer.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 05:41 PMit’s hard to pass comment without actually reading the review.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 05:56 PMWhich could potentially be fraught with legal danger!
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:03 PMOn the face of it, it does seem somewhat weird.
There had to have been something egregious in the review.
An ad hominem attack?Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:18 PMI sat through a number of portions of the evidence in this action. Trust me - it will ultimately be overturned on appeal (if not by the Northern Court of Appeal then by the House of Lords).
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:27 PMThat wasn’t alleged, according to what I’ve read (admittedly, in the Irish News)
The case was brought on grounds of hurt feelings.
This sets some really absurd precedents.Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:27 PMI am wondering if we can get the same sort of protections put in for home cooks? From now on, until further notice, if someone places something hot on a plate in front of you, the correct responses are:
a.) Lovely, thanks
b.) Truly scrumptious!
or
c.) Please, ma’am, may I have some more?Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:28 PM“The case was brought on grounds of hurt feelings.
This sets some really absurd precedents.”Ah the good old jury system does it again.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:29 PMThe review has been removed from the Irish News website. However, a disgruntled reader wrote this letter perhaps in response to it (although it refers to a ‘May and Frances’ rather than Ms. Workman, so may be in response to a different bad review of the same restaurant):
“‘We the people like it’
I read the gourmet column in last Saturday’s paper. I would like to keep my response brief as I am sure articulate customers of Goodfellows will also reply. May and Frances may be a bundle of laughs in the news room but they come across as a whining duo.
The number of cars outside the restaurant and the full tables inside should have given them a clue that we the people like it, even though we have cars and can go to other restaurants we prefer this one.
I would suggest to both ladies that they nip over to Curleys, buy 20 fags and a bottle or two, go back to Goodfellows and enjoy as the patrons do.
I also hope the management of Goodfellows take no notice of the column and don’t change something that does not need changing.
Desmond Kennedy
Belfast 17”
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:33 PMSo there we have it: 2,000 years of jurisprudence stripped down by the good people of Belfast to its core message of “Yes, but yousuns are snabs”.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 06:55 PMI wonder what Mr Durkan thinks of this given his current legal difficulty?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 07:00 PMIf I say the DUP is making a horlicks of things, can I get sued as well?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 07:20 PMDoes this mean technically the local butcher can sue Slugger if we accuse the Shinners of taking the soup
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 07:36 PMThe Irish news should tell them that if anyone finds insects in their meal and report it to the paper..... that they will make it front page for a week, destroying his trade completely.
Now that would be food for thought and legal
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 07:42 PMa ludicrous decision. restaurant reviews are written for the public, not restaurant owners. absolutely ludicrous.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 08:10 PMThe Irish News have said they will appeal the decision
“The outcome of this case raises profound questions involving the freedom of the press,” a spokesman for the Belfast-published Irish News said.
“We firmly believe that newspapers must have the right to publish fair and honestly written reviews, contributed by experts in their particular field and engaging in either praise or criticism when it is justified.”
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 08:13 PMThis is insane. What ever happened to the defence of fair comment/honest opinion against defamation/libel? Or do judges no longer give direction and assistance to juries?
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 08:51 PMThe law is an ass. Oops.
Sorry what I should say is legal decisions are always profound, but a few are so profound that they are beyond the comprehension of mere mortals like myself.
You would really need to see the article, but on face value glad to see it is being appealed. There is a big difference between opinion and libel, and we are all entitled to our opinion.
El Matador
I would suggest to both ladies that they nip over to Curleys, buy 20 fags and a bottle or two, go back to Goodfellows and enjoy as the patrons do.
I assume you need to consume them first!? Sounds just the spot for a night out.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:00 PM“The case was brought on grounds of hurt feelings.
This sets some really absurd precedents.”This thread has hurt my feelings. Whom can I sue? :0)
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:21 PMIf everyone on here sued when their character was attacked or they got hurt feelings, the lawyers of NI would have a field day and Mick would be bankrupted :p
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:29 PMthis does seem absurd. so when the guy who does business book reviews in the Newsletter gives a business guru a slagging off, can he now be sued?
surely this will be overturned on appeal.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:32 PMSRR,
“This sets some really absurd precedents.”Jury verdicts can’t set precedents.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:57 PM
