In a recent NSW court decision, the boundaries of defamation law were stretched by a ruling made in the case Gacic & Civic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Matthew Evans. The case dealt with a review of King Street Wharf restaurant Coco Roco, in which Matthew Evans slammed the eatery as "a bleak spot on the culinary landscape".

This case overruled the famous decision of Leo Schofield's scathing review of the Blue Angel in which he described the lobsters as appallingly overcooked to a state in which they resembled "albino walrus".

The new ruling set out that a review will be 'fair comment' if what is written is an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact, based on proper material for comment with a demonstration of the facts included in the review.

In the spirit of this new precedent in journalistic freedom, it is only fair that we subject the court case to a new generation restaurant review itself.

To start with, I found the ambiance in the cavernous court rooms was lacking, the high ceilings and wooden benches gave the room a cathedral-like feel, but there was nothing spiritual about sitting in these pews on a cold winter morning.

Of all the dishes presented by the judges, I found the decision that "the readers must be in a decision to decide for themselves" was the most interesting. In a way it has the qualities of a couscous; while it may be able to absorb flavours and be adapted to suit different styles, on its own it is nothing more than meal, bashed to a fine consistency, it looks like chicken feed and tastes like the aftermath.

The ruling that a review "can be exaggerated, but it must be the honestly held view of the reviewer" was as over the top as it sounds. McDonalds honestly believe that their new menu is appealing and healthy, but that doesn't mean that they are pulling cheeseburgers off the menu. No, this decision was as putrid as an oily, pre-cooked, re-processed excuse for a meal usually served in fast food shops (should I start exaggerating now?).

As for the wine list, the judges sitting on the bar may have the right pedigree and look as though they are of a vintage that would deliver a judgement with a full body and ripe fruity undertones. Sadly all the wines had young undeveloped characteristics on account of this case being only a preliminary hearing; and no evidence was heard.

While this case may offer a few dishes of genuine class and taste, it lacks the variety and depth to make it worthy of any Michelin stars.