Cantonese restaurant Wokhei has lost its appeal against the Michelin Guide after notifying the company that it did not want to be reviewed. The Taiwan High Court said information published in the guide is protected under freedom of speech.
Wokhei, a private kitchen in Taipei's Daan District that specializes in Cantonese food, notified Michelin that it did not want to be reviewed by its anonymous inspectors. It did not get a response and filed a civil suit against the company. The court ruled against Wokhei, and Wokhei appealed. The High Court likewise ruled against Wokhei.
Kuan Ching-yi, Taiwan High Court Chief Judge: “Simply not getting a response doesn't mean their (anonymous inspectors) will pay you a visit. The freedom of chefs to serve the dishes they want to create is violated by the possibility of Michelin inspectors dining at their restaurants. Customers' contractual service rights also aren't violated.”
The high court ruled that Wokhei does not have the right to restrict the freedom of speech of consumers and Michelin inspectors are not required to inform restaurants why they are there. It also said information published in the Michelin Guide is protected by freedom of speech under the constitution.
Edgar Tien (Aug. 4, 2021), Wokhei's Lawyer: “If you're not using this anonymous inspector review format, I can decide whether I want to serve you. We don't agree with anonymous inspectors writing reviews not using their real identities.”
Wokhei's attorney says the private kitchen may appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
主打粵菜，藏身在台北市大安私廚名店鍋氣，不滿米其林指南用秘密客評鑑，發函給米其林法國總部，拒絕參加評比，要求秘密客不得上門，沒有獲得回應，於是提吿民事訴訟。但全案一審敗訴，上訴二審後，法院同樣判決敗訴。
台灣高等法院審判長管靜怡說明：「單純沒有回應這件事情，其實不代表他（秘密客）就會來做這樣子的事情，會侵害你所謂締約自由的人格，或者是意思表示決定自由的人格。」
判決敗訴理由，合議庭認為，鍋氣沒有限制消費者對外發表評論，儘管不認同米其林的評鑑模式，但不代表評審員有義務事前告知用餐目的及他的身分。而米其林指南發布的資訊跟公共利益有關，也該受到憲法言論自由保障。
2021年8月，鍋氣（WOKHEI）委任律師田振慶表示：「如果你不是用密探方式，我可以決定要不要跟你接受你來我消費的權利。但是用秘密客、用密探，不是用真實身分來評鑑，我們不同意。」
過去曾經大動作按鈴提告，槓上米其林，這回得知判決結果後，鍋氣的委任律師低調，不願多做回應。會不會再上訴？等到收到判決書後還會再研議。