Federal Court judge Robert Bromwich accused of ‘bias’ in influencers' lobster dinner saga

A Federal Court judge has been accused of failing to take seriously a matter concerning three influencers who allegedly faked food poisoning to avoid paying for a $364 lobster meal.

One of the three social media influencers, Julie Nguyen, at the centre of the defamation case. Picture: Instagram

A Federal Court judge has been accused of failing to take seriously a matter concerning three Sydney influencers who allegedly faked food poisoning to avoid paying for their $364 lobster dinner, after an application was made to have him thrown off the case.

The application was filed last month after the judge, Robert Bromwich, attempted to have the matter downgraded to mediation or a lower court, and was criticised for treating the matter as “less than impressive” because it concerns social media influencers and food bloggers.

The defamation matter, currently being heard in the Federal Court, regards a trio of influencers Jennifer Do, Belinda Nguyen and Julie Nguyen, who dined at high-end Cabramatta seafood eatery Silver Pearl Restaurant on Christmas evening in 2020.

Justice Robert Bromwich.

Following their meal, the restaurant posted a scathing review of the “entitled” diners to its social media account, blasting them for faking illness to dodge the $364 bill for one bottle of wine and a live lobster, and calling their behaviour “totally classless”, according to court documents.

“Halfway through the meal, they complained to staff that they were ‘feeling sick’ and accused us of serving them frozen lobster, instead of fresh/live lobster, which apparently was the reason for them ‘feeling sick’. Note the CCTV footage of them continuing to eat WHILST complaining about the food too,” the social media post read.

“Our staff tried to explain to them that this was definitely not the case. The staff brought the head of the lobster back out and even tried to explain to them how the head juices change colour based on the amount of time passed, and since their order was only recently cut, they could see that the head juices were still ­vibrant. They tried to reassure them that the lobster they chose, was the lobster (that) was served to them.

Cabramatta restaurant Silver Pearl posted images of the diners, who allegedly tried to scam their way out of paying for their meals by claiming the suffered from food poisoning.

The diners have since sued Silver Pearl for defamation.

“After they COMPLETELY FINISHED their sashimi and wine, they refused to pay. They were rude and tried to bully our waitstaff who were not fluent in English.

“When management arrived back on site the next day, we were told of the incident.

“We located the girls and their mother through Instagram and sent them a private message asking them to settle the matter in private and pay for the balance of their bill of $364. Within 24 hours, they have ALL BLOCKED US.

“What makes this matter worse, is that after they left us, they went to another seafood restaurant across the road and ordered lobster and wine again!! How could anyone eat more of what made them “feel sick”? let alone another meal.”

The social media post went on to say the restaurant was “disappointed” in the “dishonest and fraudulent” behaviour of the food bloggers.

The influencers are suing the restaurant for defamation following the outburst, saying it had caused irreparable damage to their reputation.

The incident was reported in the The Sunday Telegraph, which the three women argue exacerbated the damage done by the original post as it was seen by a maximum of 140,000 people.

A publicity image from Silver Pearl restaurant in Cabramatta.

Julie Nguyen and a lobster dinner.

Justice Bromwich was clearly unimpressed with the matter, claiming it was more a “neighbourhood dispute” than a serious defamation case, and making an observation that the applicant would have difficulty getting the case into the NSW Supreme Court, let alone the Federal Court.

“I referred to the sorts of cases that were being heard in the Federal Court, like the case brought by Mr (Geoffrey) Rush, and the case brought by Mr (Ben) Roberts-Smith, not cases of this kind,” Justice Bromwich wrote in a court judgment, indicating the seriousness of the Federal Court.

The influencers’ barrister, Roger Rasmussen, responded: “It would be a shame if this court was turned into a celebrity court.”

“I responded that it would be a shame if this court was turned into a neighbourhood disputes court, and that this matter was somewhere between the two, but more at the neighbourhood dispute end of the spectrum,” Justice Bromwich wrote.

Mr Rasmussen, who attempted to have Justice Bromwich removed from the case for “appre­hended bias” submitted that a “fair-minded observer would have observed that (the judge) had taken the view that because the applicants were social media influences or bloggers, their claims were less than impressive”.

Justice Bromwich said the submission was “not supported” by evidence from court transcripts, and dismissed the application.

The influencers were instructed to pay the restaurant’s costs.