Judge overturns libel ruling over bad restaurant review
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Restaurant reviewers could be forgiven for raising a glass of champagne on expenses last night after the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland overturned a claim of £25,000 in damages from a restaurant criticised in The Irish News.
The newspaper welcomed the verdict, saying it had been vindicated on "a point of principle". Its editor, Noel Doran, was quick to present the case as a victory for press freedom. "If a newspaper has to be entitled to express its views, we have defended that principle and we will continue to," he said.
The reviewer, Caroline Workman, had questioned the quality of food and drink and service at the Goodfellas eaterie in west Belfast.
After the restaurant's owner, Ciaran Convery, claimed the article was defamatory and sued the newspaper, a jury awarded him £25,000 in damages at a trial last year. Yesterday, the verdict was quashed and a retrial ordered by the Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian Kerr.
"I have decided that there was misdirection in the present case. I would allow the appeal and quash the order made in favour of the respondent," he said.
The newspaper had argued that its review was "fair comment" and Lord Lester QC, who was representing the newspaper, said that for libel proceedings to follow a critical review would be "perfectly ludicrous".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments