Search

“I may as well give you the inside story”: Dr Charlie Teo unleashes on tribunal

Dr Charlie Teo has revealed his true thoughts on a five-day disciplinary hearing by the Health Care Complaints Commission. The commission launched their inquiry into two cases where Teo performed brain surgery on two patients who ultimately passed away, in the wake of accusations of negligence. And while Teo denied any negligence on his part, he did admit that he was responsible, telling the hearing that he believed he had been “too aggressive”. It was during a speech to guests at his annual Rebel Ball - the “Charlie Teo Foundation’s premier event supporting the visionaries and revolutionaries tackling brain cancer head-on” - that he unleashed, slamming the Health Care Complaints Commission and the hearing. At the Crown Sydney, Teo took to the stage to a roar of applause from his supporters, and began by telling them “you here tonight have stuck with me and I can't thank you enough for your loyalty. “Everyone's been asking me about the tribunal. I may as well give you the inside story. “The tribunal was absolute f***ing bulls**t.” It isn’t the first time that Teo had spoken out against the strikes against himself and his career, with the neurosurgeon having <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/the-agenda-is-to-destroy-charlie-teo-final-hit-ahead-of-hearing">previously confessed to Mark Bouris</a> that “it’s got nothing to do with fairness, what’s right or wrong. It’s all got to do with people’s agendas. And the agenda is to destroy Charlie Teo.” And outside of his March hearing, Teo insisted that restrictions from prior hearings had potentially cost lives, with the neurosurgeon noting that he hadn’t been able to save lives that he knew he could have. The end goal of Teo’s Rebel Ball was just that: helping people, and ultimately saving lives. In a post to the Charlie Teo Foundation’s Facebook page, it was declared that the event had “transformed the future”, having raised over $1 million “for game-changing brain cancer research”. Among the guests and contributors were the likes of former Australian cricketers Steve Waugh and Gavin Robertson, former Olympic volleyballer Kerri Potthurst, “the last man to represent NSW at both cricket and rugby league” Graeme Hughes, and Labor’s Graham Richardson. Brain tumour survivor Beatrice McBride was also in attendance, and even performed with her father, Slide McBride, with a song she’d written for Teo. The musical entertainment continued from there, with Mondo Rock’s Paul Christie joining The Hidley Street Country Club Band on stage. Supporters were quick to flock to Teo’s side after the event, sharing their congratulations for a successful fundraising effort, and their delight at seeing so many prepared to stand by him. “Amazing result,” one wrote, “well done to everyone giving Charlie the support.” “It was a great night had by all. Thanks to all the big supporters for their massive contributions. Just proves Charlie can still pull a crowd of true believers. There was no room for the haters,” another declared. Meanwhile, another summed it up - and echoed the majority - when they shared that they were “so happy folk supported Charlie.” Images: Facebook

News

Woman awarded $131,000 after not being invited to work drinks

A waitress has been awarded a whopping $131,000 after not being invited to work drinks. Rita Leher said that she felt “shunned” by her colleagues at a London casino when they didn’t invite her to a cocktail bar. The 51-year-old, who is older than her colleagues and has worked at the casino for 10 years, took stress leave after hearing the plans being discussed in front of her and not receiving an invite. Rita, who also happens to be of African descent, issued a complaint to the employment tribunal on the basis of race and claimed the victimisation was due to her age and ethnicity. “We unanimously agree that being excluded from discussions at work about a social occasion amongst colleagues when one would normally be included would subject an employee to a detriment at work," Employment Judge Sarah Moor said. "A reasonable employee would consider that such exclusion was to their disadvantage because they had lost the opportunity to bond with colleagues on that social occasion. "The occasion was sufficiently linked to work by the fact that it was amongst work colleagues and was discussed at work, and would provide the opportunity for team bonding.” Rita was subsequently awarded £74,113.65 ($131,000) in compensation on the basis of injury to feelings and loss of overtime and financial loss. Image: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Couple receives $3000 from Aus Post for botched deliveries

Australia Post has been forced to pay out over $3000 to a Melbourne couple after drivers repeatedly failed to deliver parcels to their home for over a year during the pandemic.Wayne Short and Veronica Libson took the postal giant to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in December to seek compensation, claiming that Australia Post failed to deliver parcels to their home and continued sending them to the local post office instead.Mr Short said some of the parcels contained important items such as medication for their daughter, who is waiting for a liver transplant, and other contained goods for their hire party business.He told the tribunal that the issues began in 2019, when the couple started experiencing difficulties getting parcels delivered to their home.Despite filing a complaint directly to Australia Post at the time, it was not responded to.Then in March 2020, the couple were undertaking renovations on their stairs and Mr Short said delivery drivers couldn’t safely deliver parcels for a week.However, after the renovations were completed the parcels were still not delivered, with the driver claiming they were still unsafe to climb.After this, Australia Post drivers stopped delivering parcels altogether, instead sending SMS messages to the couple to pick up their parcels at the post office.In June of the same year, the couple filed a second complaint, this time to the local post office. The manager reassured Mr Short that the issue would be sorted out.A few days later, a heated argument erupted between Mr Short and a delivery driver at the couple’s home.When the driver handed over the parcel, Mr Short then told the driver they were tired of tracking down all their other parcels. The driver responded by taking back the parcel and telling Mr Short they could “go pick up their own parcels”.According to the tribunal, Mr Short lost his temper, grabbing the parcel abc and telling the driver to “get the f**k off his property”.After the incident, all deliveries apart from their normal mail ceased.As for how the compensation was calculated based on how long it took the couple to collect their parcels.Having found that they spend around 30 minutes travelling to the post office every week between June 2020 and December 2021, VCAT member Neil Campbell calculated the compensation of $3100.He said the tribunal found the deliveries were “not undertaken with due care and skill” as they were “not delivered to the residential address” and there was “no basis for them not to be”.In a statement shared with <a style="background-image: initial;background-position: initial;background-size: initial;background-attachment: initial;margin: 0px;padding: 0px;border: 0px;vertical-align: baseline" href="https://7news.com.au/business/australia-post/australia-post-ordered-to-pay-3000-to-melbourne-couple-over-botched-deliveries-c-5556891" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7News.com.au</a>, a spokesperson for Australia Post said the company respected the tribunal’s decision.“Australia Post respects the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and can confirm that parcel delivery has recommenced to the address,” they said.Image: @auspost (Instagram)

Legal

Tribunal rules AGAINST Centrelink

A tribunal has ruled against Centrelink’s decision to cancel an 80-year-old man’s pension and have labelled the move as “absurd and wrong”. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal criticised Centrelink in a judgement published this week, after the agency cancelled the man’s age pension despite him not having “the capacity to comprehend … a decision to suspend his pension”. David Fry has advanced dementia and lives in a nursing home, with the tribunal hearing that his son, John, was appointed his legal guardian after David was found driving on the wrong side of the road and deemed to be “mentally incapacitated”. As a result, John Fry became responsible for liaising with Centrelink on his father’s behalf. David had been receiving the pension from Centrelink since 2006. But, his payment was cancelled in May 2018, after John failed to provide updated details for one of David’s superannuation accounts. The tribunal heard that John was finding it hard to obtain the required information and was unfamiliar both with Centrelink’s processes and his dad’s finances. He called the agency and the pension was reinstated. However, the payment was once again suspended in September for the same reason, and was totally cancelled in December. Before the payment was cancelled, Centrelink sent a final letter regarding the issue with David’s super, but sent it to him rather than his son. The tribunal found that this letter had no legal effect because Centrelink knew David “did not have the mental capacity to be aware of, let alone respond to, the requests”. Centrelink later wrote to both men to advise them that the pension was cancelled because “we did not receive a reply to the income stream review letter we sent you”. In his ruling against the agency, tribunal member Roger Maguire said it was “difficult to contemplate a person who might be more vulnerable than a hospitalised septuagenarian suffering from dementia”. Maguire acknowledged that John failed to comply with the agency’s notices, but noted that it was partly because he had “no knowledge of his father’s financial affairs” and was made his father’s legal guardian “against his father’s will”. “His father was not forthcoming with information, and this placed him in a situation of particular difficulty,” he <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/17/centrelinks-cancelling-of-80-year-olds-age-pension-absurd-and-wrong-tribunal-rules" target="_blank">said</a>. Though Centrelink is allowed to suspend or cancel payments if a person fails to comply with notices, the agency does have the ability to obtain information from a person’s financial institution. In David’s case, Centrelink didn’t seek out that information, cancelling his payment instead. The agency argued that the decision was “rational and proportionate”, but Maguire found it to be “absurd and wrong”. Centrelink also argued against paying David for the months where his pension was cancelled - between December 2018 and approximately January 2020 - because the cancellation wasn’t appealed within 13 weeks. However, the tribunal ruled against Centrelink after finding evidence that John had called the agency three times in October. Though the reasons for his calls weren’t recorded, Maguire said it was “fairly obvious he wasn’t phoning up to try and organise a golf game”. Image: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games