Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

Common sense vs. litigators as the Rao case goes back to court

By johnboy - 16 July 2009 30

The Canberra Times has the unfortunate news that Cube stabbing case is going back to court despite Justice Malcolm Grey finding last March that the club owner Maurizio Rao acted in self defence when David Nato Seuala received fatal stab wounds outside the Cube nightclub at 4.30 in the morning on 15 July 2006.

Seula’s partner and mother of his two children, Patricia Soledad Gaete, is trying to see if the civil courts will compensate where the criminal court would not convict.

    But Ms Gaete’s lawyers Blumers claim the club was responsible for Mr Seuala’s death for allowing Mr Rao, who they claim is technically an employee of holding company XL Enterprises, to brawl with patrons or prospective patrons.

    Blumers also claim that XL failed to provide a safe entertainment venue, failed to train its security staff properly and allowed one of them to carry a knife.

    Lawyers for XL have lodged a defence with the court, denying any negligence or liability for Mr Seuala’s death.

    XL’s lawyers Deacons further allege that it was Mr Seuala’s negligence that resulted in his own death and that he was engaging in illegal activity when he instigated the fight.

One would hope that, having refused the gentlemen entry, XL’s requirement to provide them with a safe entertainment would be moot.

I’m just guessing here, but I’d imagine that Blumers have taken this case on a contingency basis. Anyone want to speculate what percentage of any final payment they’re going to walk away with.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to
Common sense vs. litigators as the Rao case goes back to court
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
kiko 5:58 pm 23 Nov 09

you are all clearly on the rao side of the fence, which is fine, because you are entitled to support who ever you want.
But I think we need to have a neutral view on this and see it for what it is. This man was cleared of the murder charge yes, but his is ultimately responsible for killing this man no matter what any judge says, acting in self defence or not.

Had a lesser charge of manslaughter or actual bodily harm occasioning death had have been brought before him, this man would have found himself behind bars for 7-10, with good behaviour maybe 5. The fact is he was not guilty of murder, and because he has been cleared of the charge, the AFP cannot charge him with anything else with regards to this incident, however had they had of not rushed to charge him and investigated the facts first then charged him with one of the charges I mentioned then he would have been found guilty, no question.

The families case against rao\cube for financial compensation is no different to compensation saught post a car accident. They will recieve compensation, its just whether or not it gets to court or settles before. Money doesn’t seem to be an issue for rao, as he was seen cruisin town in a ferrari 430(about 350k approx) so business must be good? 😉

Seems wrong.. Thats not justice.. Lets hope Karma takes care of this one.

Clown Killer 8:37 pm 20 Jul 09

The lad simply got what what he deserved. This is a waste of time.

Special G 8:05 pm 20 Jul 09

What a load of crap. Rao didn’t need to stay there. He could have de-escalated the situation and let them walk away. He racially insulted them effectively picking a fight then jammed a knife in the blokes head.

Self defence would have been letting them walk away or shutting the big gate on the entry to the cube and letting the Police deal with it.

Civil courts are held to a much lower standard of proof than a criminal court.

bd84 10:40 pm 16 Jul 09

Another waste of taxpayers money over the death of a complete idiot. Neither case should have been allowed to go to court in the first place, in a clear cut case of self defence against a drunken fool who almost killed an innocent man over some nasty words.

monomania 10:25 pm 16 Jul 09

Blumers would appear to believe that they may win. Who would pay if costs are awarded to the defendants? Maybe they are looking for a smaller out of court settlement with the clubs insurers.

Sleaz274 3:42 pm 16 Jul 09

A man has the right to take another man’s life when he is being attacked and has reasonable fear for his own existence.

David and his smashed mates weren’t little lads and did some fair damage they were also using weapons as they came to hand and if it wasn’t for a little pruning knife Rao or Street would be dead and David would be facing murder charges and very likely in prison for sometime leaving fatherless (in all practical sense) children and a wife working twice as hard to make ends meet.

It was 4 big lads on 2 big lads and luckily for him Rao had the strength to jam that knife into David’s obviously thick head. Remember that Rao was unconcious on the ground when the ambos arrived and required days in hospital. The whole incident was caught on CCTV and the hearing judge actually stated that it was the most obvious case of self defence he has seen. Rao called the police from inside the club before the incident when Sreet fired off his alarm button. Street and Rao did the right thing by protecting the patrons of the club on that particular night (myself included..long story) from 4 boys with too much turps and obviously looking for trouble.

PBO 3:23 pm 16 Jul 09

canberra123 said :

Everyone here would be talking so much differently if it was their loved one thats was murdered!
Put urself in the victims shoes u lost ur partner because the owner of a club came out with a knife and acted in self defence??
Self defence? I have never heard something so ridiculous!
Since when does a man have the right to take another mans life? ?
A man who was the sole supporter of the family and 2 kids
And everyone here is saying she is not entitled to anything but work twice as hard for the rest of her life!
Wake up to yourselves!
Canberra123

David Suela is dead because he was an idiot. Why did he and his friends not leave when they were refused entry? Why did they threaten to bash patrons of the club? Because they wanted to be tough men and did not like the fact that they were refused entry.

As for self defence, when a group of large blokes is attacking you are you expected to take it? Are you high or something because i think that you must be fkuced in the head.

Yes his wife may have to work twice as hard for the rest of her life, but it is because of the stupid actions of her husband and his mates.

However, I do feel for her though, and the for children not having a father when they grow up. That indeed is tragic.

BerraBoy68 3:12 pm 16 Jul 09

canberra123 said :

Everyone here would be talking so much differently if it was their loved one thats was murdered!
Put urself in the victims shoes u lost ur partner because the owner of a club came out with a knife and acted in self defence??
Self defence? I have never heard something so ridiculous!
Since when does a man have the right to take another mans life? ?
A man who was the sole supporter of the family and 2 kids
And everyone here is saying she is not entitled to anything but work twice as hard for the rest of her life!
Wake up to yourselves!
Canberra123

Since when does a group of intixicated and aggrevated people have the right to infringe on the enjoyment of others or criticise their sexuality in a threatening manner? If you can answer this question you can answer you’re own.

toriness 2:13 pm 16 Jul 09

however i am willing to concede that they do provide a legal service option to those who ordinarily may not be able to afford a lawyer at all.

toriness 2:11 pm 16 Jul 09

i wonder if blumers charge the same $ per 6 minutes as other firms, the ones who don’t do the ‘don’t win, don’t pay’. aside from that the blumers website blurb about their don’t win don’t pay policy seems to imply they find they have to usually do quite a bit more work than normal to take forward/win their cases – in which case when they do win (doubtless because of the extra yards they put in which other lawyers don’t bother with!) the happy successful clients hands over the gap between what the court sees as the normal costs to provide legal representation, and that which blumers deems fit to provide their clients. interesting.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site