An Australian court has decided that an unfavourable review of a Sydney restaurant was defamatory, opening the way for the owners of Coco Roco to claim damages.
The Sydney Morning Herald's former critic, Matthew Evans, reviewing the place for the newspaper, had described the flavour of one dish - oysters soaked in limoncello - as "jangled like a car crash", concluded that it was overpriced, more than half the dishes were "simply unpalatable" and awarded the restaurant only nine points out of 20.
Here's the full review, from the newspaper's website.
Coco Roco closed three months after that review, with the owners claiming that the reviewer's words, rather than, say, the menu, prices or cooking, had put customers off the restaurant.
Was this heavy handed of the court? Was Evans over the top in describing dishes as "unpalatable"? And what does this ruling mean for restaurant criticism?
