Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Potty Mouth Solicitor Dispatched ... NSW Court of Appeal takes dim view of solicitor who laced his correspondence with disrespectful insults ... Insufficiently professional ... Arrived from Greece with only his underpants ... No contrition ... Anthony Kanaan files ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


The End Of The Affair ... Lord Moloch’s bid for more Fox News fans … The Wall Street Journal rallies the MAGA base …Will the old rogue abandon his journalists? … Is “bawdy” the right word here? … The Deep State plumbs the depths … John and Stanley Roth’s generosity to loving causes ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Suing for defamation - it's such a good idea ...Federal Court of Australia ... Sydney barrister loses bid for extension of time to bring appeal over decision allowing Giles George to intervene to seek an equitable lien over costs ... Falling out between barrister and firm after successful defamation action ... No error or procedural unfairness ... From Stephen Murray at the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Major victory for the media as public interest defence established in large and lengthy defamation case brought by orthopaedic surgeon ... Al Muderis v Nine Network, Fairfax and The Age ... Good journalism wins the day ... More >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

Postcard from London ... Summertime - And the living' is easy ... Votes for 16-year olds ... Paralegal's theft by pen ... Spy helping British intelligence from his job at Border Force ... Super-injunction comes out of the shadows ... Feed them strawberries and cream ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"I've stopped six wars in the last - I'm averaging about a war a month. But the last three were very close together. India and Pakistan, and a lot of them. Congo was just and Rwanda was just done, but you probably know I won't go into it very much, because I don't know the final numbers yet. I don't know. Numerous people were killed, and I was dealing with two countries that we get along with very well, very different countries from certain standpoints. They've been fighting for 500 years, intermittently, and we solved that war. You probably saw it just came out over the wire, so we solved it ..."

President Donald Trump at a meeting in Scotland with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer ... July 28, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Home Duties ... The dumping of Attorney General Mark Dreyfus ... Behind the scenes ... Bastardry among the brothers ... Unfinished business ... Family law, privacy ... Considerable policy and legislative results ... Here's Michelle Rowland as AG ... What are her priors? ... Polly Peck reports from the Gallery ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Abolish silks ... Sydney SC writes to the editor calling for abolition of the silk system ... Appointments are anachronistic ... It's not a matter of ability, only notability ... Secret blackballing ... "Corrupt" process ... Confessions from an insider who played the game ... From Justinian's Archive, October 24, 2002 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Christmas on the minimum wage | Main | The joys of the duty barrister »
Monday
Dec192011

Food fight hits wrong target

Defamatorium ... Gacic v Fairfax ... Restaurant review ... Right to comment depends on getting the facts right ... Too much Coco, not enough Roco ... Despite the NSW Court of Appeal's finding, Artemus Jones thinks restaurant reviewing is safe, provided all the other ingredients are well served 

The Court of Appeal's recent judgment in Gacic v John Fairfax has brought on much gnashing of teeth among defamation lawyers who act for large media organisations.

Cries of "it is the end of the defence of fair comment" and "Fairfax would have succeeded in England" have been heard along Phillip Street and Martin Place.

In my opinion this is bunkum. 

Justice Rares of the Federal Court pointed out some years ago that the defence of comment had been narrowly interpreted by the NSW Court of Appeal in a number of judgments, going back to the 1990s. 

In Channel 7 Adelaide v Manock the High Court fell in with this trend.

Justice Ruth McColl judgment in Gacic (with whom Giles and Sackville agreed) changes nothing in respect of the operation of the defence of comment.

McColl: scathing about trial judgeNotwithstanding the tendency of courts to confine the ambit of the defence, it can still offer wide-ranging protection for professionally written articles - provided that the author holds the stated opinions and the supporting facts are truly stated.

In my view Matthew Evans' restaurant review in The Sydney Morning Herald - the matter complained of in Gacic - was imprecise.

Evans' review was published on September 30, 2003. The review:

  1. Is seriously defamatory.
  2. Refers to "Coco Roco" compendiously as one entity.
  3. Notwithstanding (b) states explicitly that there were two quite separate restaurants: Coco and Roco.

Added to this are two further facts not in dispute:

  1. Evans ate only at Coco. He did not eat at Roco.
  2. Evans did not hold any adverse opinions about Roco.

Immediately after publication of the review the plaintiffs (the owners of both restaurants) sought an apology, but Fairfax refused to publish one. The plaintiffs then sued for defamation.

Enter Clive Evatt, who skillfully pleaded the following imputations:

  1. The plaintiffs sell unpalatable food at Coco Roco.
  2. The plaintiffs provide some bad service at Coco Roco.
  3. The plaintiffs are incompetent as restaurant owners because they employ a chef at Coco Roco who makes poor quality food.

Each imputation pointedly incorporates the compendious term "Coco Roco". Each imputation, therefore, defames both restaurants.

Evatt: shrewdEvatt convinced a section 7A jury, the Court of Appeal and the High Court that each of these imputations arose and was defamatory of the plaintiffs. It was these imputations, therefore, which Fairfax had to defend.

At the defences trial before Justice Ian Harrison - fresh from a Court of Appeal birching in another defamation case: Bennette v Cohen  - Fairfax ran an ingenious argument.

Accepting that they could not defend Evatt's imputations because they referred to both restaurants, Fairfax argued that there was in fact only one restaurant.

Harrison J agreed to decide this issue as a "preliminary point", which would determine the outcome of the defences of comment and truth.

Fairfax's argument had difficulties:

(a) The so-called preliminary point is irrelevant to the issues that Harrison had to determine. In the words of Giles JA it was "a false issue".

(b) The argument constitutes an attempt to radically re-define the meaning of imputations already found to have arisen.

(c) Fairfax's basic assertion is directly inconsistent with the unambiguous statement in the review that there were two restaurants. It is also untrue. 

Harrison: found there was one restaurantJustice Harrison found for Fairfax on the "preliminary point" and upheld the defence of comment, (and truth as to some of the imputations).

Not so surprisingly, in a well-reasoned judgment, McColl JA found that Harrison had got it completely wrong.

Her Honour is scathingly critical of Harrison, but her judgment simply applies the relevant principles relating to the defence of comment to the facts of this case.

As a matter of law, McColl's decision is correct.

As a matter of basic fairness, the judgment is also correct. Why couldn't Fairfax confine the defamatory comments to Coco – the restaurant at which Evans had eaten?

Why did the review go on to defame Roco - a quite separate restaurant at which Evans had not eaten?

If the defamatory comment had been confined to Coco, then the defence of comment would have succeeded.

At the section 7A trial Clive Evatt created a fictional category of "business defamation" and persuaded the Court of Appeal of its validity. Fairfax appealed to the High Court, but it did not appeal on this issue.

Subsequently, in another case, the High Court put Evatt's heresy to rest.

Matthew Evans: didn't enjoy his meal at CocoIn the High Court, Guy Reynolds and Evatt succeeded on the issue of the power of the Court of Appeal to direct verdicts in defamation appeals.

Now the defence of comment has failed squarely on the merits.

Actually, it is even worse than that.

Assume that Fairfax's assertion that there was only one restaurant is correct.

It follows that the assertion in the review that there were two restaurants must be false. In such circumstances, how could the defence of comment succeed?

Fairfax now faces a re-trial on damages as McColl JA held that Harrison J's provisional award of $80,000 was far too little.

In my opinion, this sorry saga gives rise to the following salutary lessons:

(a) Sloppy reviewing or editing will not (and should not) attract the protection of the defence of comment.

(b) Some large media organisations will spend a fortune (the legal costs in Gacic must now exceed $2,000,000) defending the indefensible.

(c) Clive Evatt is one of the shrewdest legal minds at the Sydney defamation bar.

I understand that Fairfax intends to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court. I would have thought that their chances would be slim. After all, what interest does the High Court have in determining whether Coco Roco was one restaurant or two in 2003?

I did, however, seek the view of a respected defamation lawyer in Sydney. His response was as follows:

"Artemus, to paraphrase the late great wordsmith Rex Mossop, 'If Fairfax get leave in this matter you can f*#k me in Pitt Street'."

On that note I'm off to dinner. And no matter how gruesome the fare I will resist the urge to publish a review.

Artemus Jones reporting

Dieppe

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Food fight hits wrong target - Bloggers - Justinian: Australian legal magazine. News on lawyers and the law

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Member Account Required
You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.