The dangers of regional papers carrying critical restaurant reviews have been highlighted in a recent court case in Northern Ireland.

In what is being seen as a potential watershed for press freedom, the Irish News has been left paying its own legal bill despite successfully overturning a £25,000 libel award.

The Belfast-based daily initially lost the libel claim two years ago made by restaurant owner Ciarnan Convery after the paper carried a scathing review of his ‘Goodfellows’ restaurant in 2000.

Mr Convery called Caroline Workman’s review a “hatchet job” when she gave the West Belfast restaurant a one out of five score and criticised the quality of food, drink and staff and smoky atmosphere.

The restaurateur was awarded £25,000 damages but this was later quashed by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in March last year.

The court ruled that the jury had been misdirected on whether the opinions expressed in the article were justified and therefore defensible as fair comment.

Last week the Court of Appeal ruled that there should be no order for costs in this case, leaving both the Irish News and Mr Convery to pick up their own legal bills.

Lawyers for the newspaper argued that the winners in these types of cases would normally have their costs paid but Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Kerr directed that no order for costs should be made.

Comments

Golam Murtaza (04/02/2009 10:28:11)
I can’t believe that wretched restaurant owner sued the paper for doing its job. And I can’t believe he was initially successful! I hope local reporters remember his name and give him a wide berth if he ever comes to them for help in future.

Halima Sadat (04/02/2009 10:35:20)
As a features writer and reviewer on a regional paper, I appreciate the difficulties. You’re torn between supporting local businesses and giving a fair report to the paying public. My line of defence has been to scrap an item if I can’t say anything good. It’s an unsatisfactory compromise but I’m always aware that I’m not AA Gill and I don’t have his privileges. There is too much potential for fallout.

Mike Simpson (04/02/2009 10:45:54)
I don’t see Halima’s problem. If it comes to the crunch she should be supporting her local readers rather than businesses. It’s doing them no favours to stay quiet so they carry on wasting money at a poor restaurant.

Richard (04/02/2009 11:25:03)
Scary… but I am slightly confused by the HTFP report abbout the jury being misdirected. Fair comment defence doesn’t mean it has to be “justified” (that’s justification defence). It just has to be honestly held opinion based on facts and without malice.”Justifiable”, perhaps.

Martin Wellbourne (04/02/2009 19:16:49)
The thing to bear in mind with any restaurant review is that it’s based on just one visit. Even the best restaurant can have an off-night … and so can the best reviewer. A seriously bad review can put a restaurant out of business and people out of work. Is that ever “justified” on the basis of one person’s opinion on one visit? I’m all for criticism where justified, but it can nearly always be done in a constructive way.

Sniper (07/02/2009 00:55:32)
I’ve never heard of a newspaper slaging off a restaurant, there is something very fishy about the whole episode