Share Facebook

Twitter

Whatsapp

Mail

Whatsapp Darryl Kerrigan (Michael Caton) and Dennis Denuto (Tiriel Mora) in The Castle.

A local solicitor's serenity was disturbed when he was likened to sweaty legal icon Dennis Denuto from the movie 'The Castle'. He argued it was a damaging comparison and launched a $250,000 defamation case, only for the courts to recently dismiss the vibe of his argument.

Dennis Denuto might be among Australia's most famous legal figures, but one solicitor believed being likened to him was cause for a defamation action.

pq This case has a meditation upon what it means if you call a solicitor a Dennis Denuto.

Queensland solicitor Brett Smith argued that being compared to the famed suburban solicitor from the 1997 Australian film The Castle implied he was unprofessional, foolish and incompetent.

The likeness was made by his former son-in-law Kenneth Lucht, who referred to Smith as 'Dennis Denuto from Ipswich' in an email.

That prompted Smith to launch sue for defamation, demanding $250,000 in damages.

'This case has a meditation upon what it means if you call a solicitor a Dennis Denuto,' says the University of Sydney's Professor David Rolph.

In The Castle, the dishevelled Denuto (played by Tiriel Mora), is the affable but bumbling representative of the Kerrigan family in their fight to keep their home.

In his closing address before the Federal Court, Denuto, who is shown to have difficulties with photocopiers and Roman numerals, delivers his most memorable argument to a visibly unimpressed judge.

'In summing up: it's the Constitution, it's Mabo, it's the vibe and... no, that's it. It's the vibe.'

In contrast, Brett Smith & Co Solicitors describe themselves as 'a leading Ipswich firm'.

'Your work will be done by a solicitor with 35 to 40 years experience in most facets of the law, which is a comfort that is almost impossible to find elsewhere,' states the firm's website.

However, it was the context in which Smith was likened to Denuto that was critical to the outcome of the case, which was reached in late November.

'They were very basic, low-level, everyday interactions really,' says Rolph. 'There was an email and then there were subsequently two conversations between two or three people at most.

'This is a classic example of defamation law applying to low-level everyday speech.'

Rolph, who specialises in defamation law, says the Queensland District Court dismissed the case on the grounds of triviality.

'One of the defences to defamation is triviality—that in the circumstances of publication, the publication is such that it's unlikely to cause any harm to reputation.

'Because this was communicated amongst a group of family members or people who were former family members [and] was very limited to those people, the judge here was satisfied that in the circumstances of publication, Mr Smith was unlikely to sustain any harm to his reputation, and so there was a complete defence here.'

By launching a legal action (and subsequently losing), Smith has since only succeeded in bringing more attention to the original Denuto comparison, something the judge labelled 'an incredible irony'.

'A significant proportion of damage to the plaintiff's reputation is done simply by the step of deciding to sue for defamation, because once you go to court—they are open to the public, they are open to the media to report on—legal proceedings get publicity,' says Rolph.

'An aspect of reputational harm quite often flows from the plaintiff's decision to sue for defamation and so, paradoxically, a defamation proceeding is often not the best way to actually protect or vindicate your reputation.'

It's not the vibe Listen to the full discussion on The Law Report.

Informative, jargon-free stories about law reform, legal education, test cases, miscarriages of justice and legal culture. The Law Report makes the law accessible.