Food critics beware

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Australian High Court (the highest court in the land) has recently ruled that the a scathing restaurant review by food critic, Matthew Evans, is defamatory of the proprietors of the restaurant he reviewed :

Restaurant critic Matthew Evans dined there twice and produced a scathing review, rating the restaurant 9/20, declaring it expensive with half the dishes unpalatable, saying service was good and bad, and rating value a shocker. However, the harbour view was nice.

"In a city where harbourside dining has improved out of sight in recent years, Coco Roco is a bleak spot on the culinary landscape," he concluded.

The High Court rejected the appeal by John Fairfax Publications following the Court of Appeal ruling in favour of the restaurant proprietors. The Court of Appeal found that :

four defamatory imputations could be drawn from the review: that Coco Roco's owners sold unpalatable food, charged excessive prices, provided some bad service and were incompetent as restaurant owners because they employed a chef who prepared poor-quality food.

Isn't that the whole point of reviews ?? Everyone knows that reviews are largely the subjective opinions of the reviewer. Evans' review (I haven't read the full text) does not appear to make any disparaging remarks about the proprietors but merely commented on the quality of the food, the service and pricing - three critical elements of any restaurant reviews.

So what does this ruling mean for food critics or any critic for that matter ? Are critics now potentially exposed to lawsuits when they publish unfavourable reviews or opinions ? It would seem that the High Court has now established a scary legal precedent that can have strong adverse impacts on the whole cottage industry of reviewers. And to take that to the next level, what about informal negative opinions about products or services expressed online through blogs or forums ?