41 As to the first period, it was submitted that in the period from 1 July 1991 to 1 July 1998, the appellant was not an employee of the respondent. Further, that Circular 2000/3 did not purport to alter (and not did it have the effect of altering) retrospectively, for the period from 1 July 1998 to 18 January 2000, the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the respondent. Mr Dixon submitted that Circular 2000/3 did not evince, evidence or record a mutual intention of the parties that, in the period from 1 July 1998 to January 2000, a person such as the appellant was an employee of the respondent. He contended there was also no other evidence that revealed a mutual intention of the parties that, in the period from 1 July 1998 to January 2000, the appellant was (or was to be) an employee of the respondent. In any event, it was said, it was not possible to "retrospectively" create the relationship between the parties as one of employment.
42 Counsel for the respondent referred to that part of Circular 2000/3 stating that Senior Medical Practitioners (academic) "will be classified as part-time employees with fractional staff specialist appointments". It was submitted that this section of the Circular only identified the way in which the clinical academics were to be classified (so that there was a reference point for determining the remuneration arrangements) - it did not evince, evidence or record a mutual intention of the parties that, from the date of the Circular, a person such as the appellant was an employee of the respondent.
43 It was further submitted that:
· Circular 2000/3 envisaged that each University "will continue to provide workers' compensation and public/professional liability cover" in respect of public patients. There was no logical reason for the University to agree to such insurance cover if the clinical academics were employees of the respondent in respect of public patients.
· Circular 2000/3 addressed leave benefits, salary packaging and superannuation but such matters related to benefits to be provided to the clinical academics - they did not evince, evidence or record a mutual intention of the parties that, from the date of Circular 2000/3, a person such as the appellant was an employee of the respondent.
· Circular 2000/3 did not constitute an "offer" to the appellant to commence employment with the respondent as a "part-time employee" with a "fractional staff specialist appointment" - the Circular was a document directing area health services to implement and backdate the "new remuneration arrangements". Circular 2000/3 was not addressed to the appellant or a medical practitioner and it did not seek a response from the appellant or a medical practitioner.
· Properly considered and construed, the letter from the Director General of the Department of Health to the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent dated 10 January 2000 addressed new remuneration arrangements and did not of itself reveal a mutual intention of the parties that, from the date of the letter, the appellant was (or was to be) an employee of the respondent.
· The letter of 10 January 2000 did not constitute an "offer" to the appellant to commence employment with the respondent as a "part-time employee" with a "fractional staff specialist appointment" - the letter was a document addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent that advised of the need for the "Deed of Agreement" and the intended issuance of Circular 2000/3.
· The only changes that occurred since the issuing of Circular 2000/3 were changes to the remuneration arrangements, the provision of leave benefits and the completion of annual leave forms (albeit that the changes to remuneration arrangements and leave arrangements were backdated to 1 July 1998). There was no change to rosters, reporting lines, manner of seeing and treating patients or use of equipment.
· The "Clinical Services" provided by the appellant to the respondent were provided as part of his employment with UNSW from the commencement of his employment with UNSW and that he continued to provide those "Clinical Services" until 2005. UNSW also acknowledged expressly that a clinical academic providing such services was doing so in his or her capacity as an employee of the University.
· The emailed memorandum dated 18 February 2000 from Dr MacArthur headed "Remuneration Arrangements - Clinical Academics" did not constitute an "offer" to the appellant to commence employment with the respondent as a "part-time employee" with a "fractional staff specialist appointment" - the memorandum was addressed to various General Managers of the respondent and not the appellant or a medical practitioner and related solely to the implementation of the new remuneration arrangements. The memorandum also did not invite a response from the appellant or a medical practitioner.
44 The evidence shows that in 1998 an agreement was reached between ASMOF (of which Professor Hall was a member) and HAC/NSW Health regarding remuneration arrangements for clinical academics. The agreement provided under the heading "Employee status" that clinical academics who were remunerated by the respondent and who provided more than eight hours per week service to the respondent "would in future be part-time employees of Health Services with fractional staff specialist appointments" subject to universities providing workers' compensation and public/professional liability cover for all public health system work of clinical academics. The agreement provided that clinical academics would receive benefits normally associated with employment including salary, allowances, leave, superannuation and "other conditions of employment" provided by the Salaried Senior Medical Practitioners (State) Award. Clinical academics were also to be subject to an annual assessment by the Health Services as to their performance.
45 Additionally, there is the internal departmental correspondence of 21 May 1999 and 10 October 2000 that "…clinical academics would be part-time employees of Health Services…"
46 Circular 2000/3 sets out in detail the new arrangements to apply to clinical academics. It reiterates what was said in the earlier correspondence referred to, namely, that clinical academics who provided clinical and administrative services to public patients in public hospitals for longer than eight hours per week "will be classified as part-time employees… and engaged and known as senior medical practitioners (academic)." The Circular noted that clinical academics who provided up to eight hours public patient work per week would not be engaged as senior medical practitioners (academic) but rather they would "have this work covered by their university employment."
47 The conclusion is inescapable, in our view, that NSW Health/HAC and ASMOF intended by their agreement that clinical academics who provided clinical and administrative services to public patients in public hospitals for longer than eight hours per week would become employees of the relevant Health Service, subject to a deed between "employing health services" and the relevant university that the university would continue to provide workers' compensation and public/professional liability cover.
48 If the intention was that clinical academics would not, under the new arrangements, become employees, despite the arrangements giving every appearance that the clinical academics were employees, it is impossible to accept that NSW Health/HAC would not have made its position unambiguously clear. This could have been done, for example, by simply indicating that although aspects of the new arrangements were reminiscent of an employment relationship, the arrangements did not result in any change in the relationship between clinical academics and the Health Service that had hitherto existed. Instead, there was a consistent, unqualified reference by the Department to the status of clinical academics being that of "employee".
49 The letter of 10 January 2000 and the attached circular were, in the normal course, provided to Professor Hall. The respondent could not have expected otherwise. In February 2000, Professor Hall, together with other clinical academics at Liverpool Hospital, were asked to supply information regarding the number of actual weekly hours they provided by way of clinical and administrative services to public patients in order to determine whether they would be classified as part time employees with fractional staff specialist appointments. Professor Hall provided his response, which meant he would be classified as a part time employee - not "the equivalent of" or "comparable to" and not any other qualifying term, but as a part time employee.
50 Even if the respondent never anticipated, in a subjective sense, that its letter of 10 January 2000 and the attached circular would give rise to any legal obligation in the form of an employment contract, the test of intention in relation to the creation of legal relations is, as we have said, an objective one: see in particular Damevski at [93]-[97]. In our opinion, a reasonable person in the position of Professor Hall was entitled to conclude that the respondent's intention was to enter into an employment contract with him on terms provided to him in the letter of 10 January and the attached circular. Professor Hall indicated his acceptance of the offer by responding to the request regarding his weekly hours.
51 The contract came into existence upon Professor Hall's acceptance of the offer, not on 1 July 1998. Whilst benefits arising from the employment relationship might have a retrospective operation once the relationship has been established, the legal relationship could not have been created retrospectively.