16 July 2009

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

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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.

Join the conversation

30
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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 Killer8:37 pm 20 Jul 09

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

toriness, it depends on the firm. The six minute unit is pretty common – the firm charges for each ‘unit’ of time spent working on the case.

All firms are required by law to explain to the client how they will be charged.

If you can be bothered, have a read of Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/.

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

Secret Squirrel12:41 pm 16 Jul 09

I’ve been following this story from day one, as I know Maurice’s family. Still amazed he got off the charges, considering he brought the knife to the fight.

wishuwell said :

I can see civil court action becoming the modern day equivalent of the roadside memorial.

So we’ll start seeing a pile of moulding cheap plastic tat outside the doors?

That should read “give or take a few”

A law firm will have a good idea about how much damages awarded in dollars a particular action if won would be worth and then apply their percentage but not call it that. For example whiplash ($20,000 less 20%)they may suggest the cost of representation might be in the $3,800-4,500 region give or take a fee extra expenses, medical/witness evidence phone calls photocopying etc but don’t worry we will take it out of the final amount.

orangegirl said :

No. No win no fee works to the advantage of the client, not the solicitor.

Do you think they should be banned?

I think “costs” are actually paid and highly profitable work.

I’d like more regulation in the area, or more ideally, a less expensive legal system.

orangegirl – how is the fee worked out then? genuinely interested.

No. No win no fee works to the advantage of the client, not the solicitor.

Do you think they should be banned?

Agreed they can’t work to a proportion of the payment. But is no win – no fee also banned?

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2006 – SECT 285
Contingency fees prohibited
(1) A law practice must not enter into a costs agreement under which the amount payable to the practice, or any part of that amount, is worked out by reference to the amount of any award or settlement or the value of any property that may be recovered in any proceeding to which the agreement relates.

“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.”

It is illegal in the ACT for any solicitor to act on a contingency basis.

Do your research.

The law firm wouldn’t have taken it on without assessing the prospects first. There must be some reasonable basis in law, however obscure it may seem to us mere mortals.

Patricia Soledad Gaete would have better luck going up against the ACT Government (Should be funny) because it technically happened on Government property. XL Enterprises only have authority from the club to their doorway, although there may be patrons outside the club anything beyond that door is not their concern.

David Seuala would still be alive today were it not for his stupid, drunken actions. His children would have a father had he have stayed home and looked after his family.

One could lay blame on his friends for not being responsible enough to stay out of trouble.

But the real reason that he is dead is that he and his friends could not hold their alcohol. They could not act responsibly and now one of them is dead and they are looking for a scapegoat other than themselves.

If you want to blame someone Patricia, start with his friends.

I can see civil court action becoming the modern day equivalent of the roadside memorial.

Hells_Bells749:33 am 16 Jul 09

If you want money when your other half dies, maybe take insurance out next time. Fair enough if he was murdered by conviction, but alas not.

Well at least 50% of nothing is still nothing.

they do not deserve a cent.

One would think that there is little to go ahead with as the incident happened outside the club. Also with the victim being one of the instigators, they would not really have a leg to stand on. XL completed their duty of care by not letting that group through the door. What happened after was the fault of the victim.

They are clutching at straws.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.