Latest news with #Tribunal
The Star
14 hours ago
- Business
- The Star
Tanjung Puteri apartment owner ordered to return deposit
Tavaseelan says many issues cropped up at the Tanjung Puteri apartment, prompting him and his brother to leave. A HOTEL manager in Singapore filed a case with Johor Consumer Claims Tribunal after the owner of his tenanted unit refused to refund part of his deposit. Claimant A. Tavaseelan said they had left the unit on April 17 and handed over the keys of the apartment located at Jalan Bukit Meldrum in Tanjung Puteri, Johor Baru, to the respondent on April 30. Tavaseelan and his brother A. Rueben Raj, who works as an engineer in Singapore, were co-tenants. They moved into the unit on April 30, 2023, and the monthly rental was set at RM2,200 for the first year. 'The rental was increased to RM2,700 when we renewed the tenancy agreement on April 30, 2024. 'However, our unit was located above the swimming pool and the foul smell which emanated from the toilets there permeated our unit,' said the claimant, adding the owner did not disclose this prior to renting out the unit. Tavaseelan also said fungus started to appear on the walls of the unit in the second year. 'We were away for three weeks and only discovered this when we returned from abroad,' he said, adding that the owner did not do anything when informed of the situation. Tavaseelan and Rueben Raj decided to move out and the owner agreed to return their deposit of RM7,017 after determining the unit was left in a good condition. Tavaseelan said the respondent delayed refunding the deposit. 'The respondent only refunded RM1,585.70 on May 30, after she received a notice from the Tribunal to attend the hearing,'' he said when met outside the tribunal in Menara Ansar. Tribunal president Hafez Zalkapli ordered the respondent to refund RM5,471 to the claimant within two weeks. Those who need assistance can call 07-227 1755 or 07-227 1766 or visit the Tribunal office at Level 17, Menara Ansar, Jalan Trus, Johor Baru.
Time Business News
a day ago
- Business
- Time Business News
Worker's Compensation Claim Rejected in Canberra
If you've had your Worker's Compensation Claim rejected in Canberra, you're not alone—and you're not out of options. Each year, many injured workers receive rejection letters from insurers or employers, often due to technicalities or lack of documentation. While it's frustrating, a rejected claim can be appealed and overturned with the right strategy. At ACT Law Associates, we've helped countless workers in Canberra reverse denied claims and secure the benefits they rightfully deserve. In this blog, we'll guide you through expert legal tips to help you turn your rejection into approval. The first step in dealing with a Worker's Compensation Claim rejected in Canberra is to carefully read the rejection letter. It will state the reason for the decision, which might include: Inadequate or unclear medical evidence Missed reporting deadlines Disputes over whether the injury is work-related Pre-existing conditions being used as justification Incorrect or incomplete paperwork Understanding the specific reason helps you focus your response and collect what's missing. Legal Tip #1: Act Quickly Time is critical when appealing a rejection. There are strict deadlines to request a review or lodge an appeal, usually within 28 days of the decision. If you delay, you may lose your right to challenge the outcome. At ACT Law Associates, we recommend contacting a lawyer as soon as you receive the notice. Legal Tip #2: Gather Stronger Evidence One of the most common reasons for rejection is weak medical documentation. Ask your doctor for a more detailed report outlining the nature of your injury, how it was caused, and how it impacts your ability to work. If necessary, get an independent medical assessment to reinforce your case. You may also need to submit: Workplace incident reports Statements from witnesses or coworkers Employer records that support your timeline Legal Tip #3: Request an Internal Review You have the right to ask the insurer for a formal internal review of the decision. This involves resubmitting your claim with added evidence or clarifying documentation. Many cases are resolved at this stage, especially with legal representation. Legal Tip #4: Appeal to the Tribunal If the internal review fails, you can escalate the case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). This is a more formal process where your case is heard by an independent member. Legal representation is highly recommended here, and ACT Law Associates is ready to represent you with a solid, strategic approach. With years of experience handling Worker's Compensation Claim rejected Canberra cases, our team knows exactly how to build strong appeals that get results. We provide: Free case assessments No-win, no-fee options for eligible cases Full support throughout the appeals process Trusted legal advice tailored to your situation If your Worker's Compensation Claim was rejected in Canberra, don't give up. With the right legal guidance and a determined approach, you can still receive the benefits you deserve. Contact ACT Law Associates today and let our expert legal team help you turn things around. Your recovery and financial future are worth fighting for. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- Sport
- The Advertiser
Demons star to learn rough conduct fate in AFL appeal
Melbourne will reiterate their belief that Steven May had a legitimate play at the ball in his high-speed clash with Carlton's Francis Evans when the star defender fronts the AFL Appeals Board. The case, which Demons coach Simon Goodwin predicts will shape the way players approach contests in future, will be heard on Monday evening. May was initially handed a three-match ban by the Tribunal for rough conduct over the collision that left Blues forward Evans with concussion, a broken nose and a missing tooth. But the All Australian defender maintained the ball was always his focus. "We think he had a play on the ball and it was a football incident," Goodwin said after the Demons confirmed they would appeal the Tribunal's decision. "From my perspective, that's ultimately the argument that we'll go with. "Clearly there's some legal stuff that they'll go through in terms of the case as part of the appeal. "But you can see it's divided a lot of the public and I think it's one of those cases where everyone wants it to go through the appeals (process) and see what the outcome is going to be." Goodwin said May was "devastated and shattered" by the Tribunal's decision. "Right from the outset when he first came to the bench, he was a little bit confused and thought he'd done the right thing and gone at the footy," Goodwin said. "He was shattered, he was disappointed with the outcome and clearly frustrated. "This is part of the process, go through the appeals, get the clarity required and we'll all move forward post that." Goodwin predicted players would adapt with the more information they get from the AFL about how they are required to act in certain scenarios. The 2021 premiership coach referenced the aerial contest between Fremantle captain Alex Pearce and Port Adelaide's Darcy Byrne-Jones, which caused similar controversy to the May-Evans collision. Pearce was handed a three-match ban before overturning it on appeal. "This is part of the game," Goodwin said. "We're learning more and more about the game and what's required in the game, and what the players need to do in the game, especially around concussion. "But if you look at the Alex Pearce case, these cases go all the way through to the appeals and you get more information." May is recovering from his own concussion, having missed Sunday's horror fade-out against St Kilda after an accidental knee to the head from Carlton's Tom De Koning. Melbourne will reiterate their belief that Steven May had a legitimate play at the ball in his high-speed clash with Carlton's Francis Evans when the star defender fronts the AFL Appeals Board. The case, which Demons coach Simon Goodwin predicts will shape the way players approach contests in future, will be heard on Monday evening. May was initially handed a three-match ban by the Tribunal for rough conduct over the collision that left Blues forward Evans with concussion, a broken nose and a missing tooth. But the All Australian defender maintained the ball was always his focus. "We think he had a play on the ball and it was a football incident," Goodwin said after the Demons confirmed they would appeal the Tribunal's decision. "From my perspective, that's ultimately the argument that we'll go with. "Clearly there's some legal stuff that they'll go through in terms of the case as part of the appeal. "But you can see it's divided a lot of the public and I think it's one of those cases where everyone wants it to go through the appeals (process) and see what the outcome is going to be." Goodwin said May was "devastated and shattered" by the Tribunal's decision. "Right from the outset when he first came to the bench, he was a little bit confused and thought he'd done the right thing and gone at the footy," Goodwin said. "He was shattered, he was disappointed with the outcome and clearly frustrated. "This is part of the process, go through the appeals, get the clarity required and we'll all move forward post that." Goodwin predicted players would adapt with the more information they get from the AFL about how they are required to act in certain scenarios. The 2021 premiership coach referenced the aerial contest between Fremantle captain Alex Pearce and Port Adelaide's Darcy Byrne-Jones, which caused similar controversy to the May-Evans collision. Pearce was handed a three-match ban before overturning it on appeal. "This is part of the game," Goodwin said. "We're learning more and more about the game and what's required in the game, and what the players need to do in the game, especially around concussion. "But if you look at the Alex Pearce case, these cases go all the way through to the appeals and you get more information." May is recovering from his own concussion, having missed Sunday's horror fade-out against St Kilda after an accidental knee to the head from Carlton's Tom De Koning. Melbourne will reiterate their belief that Steven May had a legitimate play at the ball in his high-speed clash with Carlton's Francis Evans when the star defender fronts the AFL Appeals Board. The case, which Demons coach Simon Goodwin predicts will shape the way players approach contests in future, will be heard on Monday evening. May was initially handed a three-match ban by the Tribunal for rough conduct over the collision that left Blues forward Evans with concussion, a broken nose and a missing tooth. But the All Australian defender maintained the ball was always his focus. "We think he had a play on the ball and it was a football incident," Goodwin said after the Demons confirmed they would appeal the Tribunal's decision. "From my perspective, that's ultimately the argument that we'll go with. "Clearly there's some legal stuff that they'll go through in terms of the case as part of the appeal. "But you can see it's divided a lot of the public and I think it's one of those cases where everyone wants it to go through the appeals (process) and see what the outcome is going to be." Goodwin said May was "devastated and shattered" by the Tribunal's decision. "Right from the outset when he first came to the bench, he was a little bit confused and thought he'd done the right thing and gone at the footy," Goodwin said. "He was shattered, he was disappointed with the outcome and clearly frustrated. "This is part of the process, go through the appeals, get the clarity required and we'll all move forward post that." Goodwin predicted players would adapt with the more information they get from the AFL about how they are required to act in certain scenarios. The 2021 premiership coach referenced the aerial contest between Fremantle captain Alex Pearce and Port Adelaide's Darcy Byrne-Jones, which caused similar controversy to the May-Evans collision. Pearce was handed a three-match ban before overturning it on appeal. "This is part of the game," Goodwin said. "We're learning more and more about the game and what's required in the game, and what the players need to do in the game, especially around concussion. "But if you look at the Alex Pearce case, these cases go all the way through to the appeals and you get more information." May is recovering from his own concussion, having missed Sunday's horror fade-out against St Kilda after an accidental knee to the head from Carlton's Tom De Koning.
Perth Now
2 days ago
- Sport
- Perth Now
Demons star to learn rough conduct fate in AFL appeal
Melbourne will reiterate their belief that Steven May had a legitimate play at the ball in his high-speed clash with Carlton's Francis Evans when the star defender fronts the AFL Appeals Board. The case, which Demons coach Simon Goodwin predicts will shape the way players approach contests in future, will be heard on Monday evening. May was initially handed a three-match ban by the Tribunal for rough conduct over the collision that left Blues forward Evans with concussion, a broken nose and a missing tooth. But the All Australian defender maintained the ball was always his focus. "We think he had a play on the ball and it was a football incident," Goodwin said after the Demons confirmed they would appeal the Tribunal's decision. "From my perspective, that's ultimately the argument that we'll go with. "Clearly there's some legal stuff that they'll go through in terms of the case as part of the appeal. "But you can see it's divided a lot of the public and I think it's one of those cases where everyone wants it to go through the appeals (process) and see what the outcome is going to be." Goodwin said May was "devastated and shattered" by the Tribunal's decision. "Right from the outset when he first came to the bench, he was a little bit confused and thought he'd done the right thing and gone at the footy," Goodwin said. "He was shattered, he was disappointed with the outcome and clearly frustrated. "This is part of the process, go through the appeals, get the clarity required and we'll all move forward post that." Goodwin predicted players would adapt with the more information they get from the AFL about how they are required to act in certain scenarios. The 2021 premiership coach referenced the aerial contest between Fremantle captain Alex Pearce and Port Adelaide's Darcy Byrne-Jones, which caused similar controversy to the May-Evans collision. Pearce was handed a three-match ban before overturning it on appeal. "This is part of the game," Goodwin said. "We're learning more and more about the game and what's required in the game, and what the players need to do in the game, especially around concussion. "But if you look at the Alex Pearce case, these cases go all the way through to the appeals and you get more information." May is recovering from his own concussion, having missed Sunday's horror fade-out against St Kilda after an accidental knee to the head from Carlton's Tom De Koning.
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Telangana seeks allocation of assured water to drought-prone areas
HYDERABAD: Telangana counsel on Friday explained to the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal (Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II) how the lift irrigation schemes are essential for the state and how historically gravity flows were denied to it, compelling it to take up the lift irrigation schemes. The counsel, using maps, explained how the reorganisation of states in 1956 and improper persuasion by the erstwhile AP with Union government and KWDT-I impacted the gravity flows to the tune of 174.3 tmcft to Telangana areas. He also explained how the ongoing projects like Srisailam Left Bank Canal (SLBC), Kalwakurthi LIS, Nettampadu LIS, Palamuru-Rangareddy LIS and Dindi LIS with a total water requirement should be covered under assured water, under 75% dependability. The senior counsel brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the proposal of Karnataka, during earlier proceedings of this Tribunal in 2009-2010 about the issue of resolving the height of the Almatti dam, to facilitate the usage of 60 tmcft by Andhra Pradesh from enhanced storage of Almatti. However, unfortunately the then Andhra Pradesh government denied the proposal and he expressed that if Telangana state existed at that time, it would have got the benefit of this 60 tmcft and would have bargained for more by way of gravity canals from Almatti project. He submitted how the area under Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal (NSLC) in Telangana region was brought down from 6.6 lakh acres to 5.4 lakh acres, duly reducing the water utilisation and simultaneously increasing the areas from 1.3 lakh acres to 3.8 lakh acres, contradicting the Planning Commission Approval of NSP in 1956. He explained the Palamuru-Rangareddy LIS and SLBC projects in detail and also storage reservoirs created under these projects, and also about other ongoing projects. Explaining in detail the status of all the ongoing projects, he also sought allocation of assured water to the most deserved drought-prone and fluoride-affected areas of Telangana within the Krishna basin. The allocation of assured water to Telangana projects will not in any way impact the the Andhra Pradesh as it gets enough water for its projects from the self-yield in other basins and alternate sources, he argued. Telangana's senior counsel concluded his final arguments for this session on Friday. The next hearing is scheduled for August 28 and 29.
