Richard Shepherd has hit back at a recent review of his restaurant in the Sunday Telegraph, describing it as "defamatory and malicious".
The review, written by the Sunday Telegraph Magazine's restaurant critic, Matthew Norman, said Shepherd's restaurant, in London's Marsham Street, was like "the eighth circle of hell".
The review stated: "Where do you start with somewhere like Shepherd's? You don't. If you have any sense, you finish with it. There is so much about Shepherd's that is wrong that it would, in a more elegant age, merit a pamphlet rather than a review."
Shepherd, who explained that the matter was in the hands of his lawyers, Wedlake Bell, said: "You have to work hard to run a restaurant. We know things can go wrong. No one's trying to say we're perfect at all, but it's about time the industry stood up and asked, 'When does an opinion go too far?'"
He claimed that "certain facts" were wrong in the original review and took particular exception to the restaurant being described as "cheap and fake". "The customers come in for it as well," he said. "You can give a critique but you don't have to be malicious."
Shepherd added: "I don't have an axe to grind, but I am convinced that when journalists set out and are trying to climb the journalistic ladder, they use us a whipping post."
Norman, meanwhile, defended his position. "The funny thing is I think I'm considered to be one of the gentler reviewers. I rarely write poisonous reviews and I've never been issued with a writ before. But this [Shepherd's] was really revolting. If I were him I'd be furious, I'd want to have me killed, but I'd be asking if there's something there."
According to the Sunday Telegraph, Wedlake Bell have demanded that Shepherd receives damages paid to the charity of his choice, and the opportunity to write a letter defending his restaurant.
If his request is not met, the restaurateur says he will have no other choice but to sue.
Source: Caterer & Hotelkeeper, 29 January - 4 February 2004