More details here from the Sydney Morning Herald.
The sole dissenting opinion came from Justice Michael Kirby, who "admitted that judges did not know much about food, and on the community standard, they were better off leaving it to the jury." He refers to the earlier decision by a jury who came down on the critic's side.
It's a preposterous decision, and it seems clear that the judges supporting this decision are woefully out of touch. As the above article points out, it criminalizes a person who expressed negative opinions. If positive reviews are all we're allowed to write, why write reviews at all?A Macquarie University law lecturer and defamation expert, Dr Roy Baker, said it was an important decision that created difficulties for publishers and critics. [...] he agreed with Justice Kirby, especially on the role of the jury as arbiter of the community standard.
Suddenly all movies are awesome, all food delicious, all businesses honest and trustworthy. This does not reflect the real world where there's a strong need for criticism and honest reviews.