HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION v HANDEL; HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION v CRYMBLE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL SHELLER JA, SHEPPARD AJA 18 August 1997, 14 November 1997 [1997] NSWCA 143 Sheller JA, Sheppard AJA Summons These applications by the claimant, Health Insurance Commission, for leave to appeal from a judgment and orders of Finnane AJ, made on 2 and 9 July 1997, came before this Court on 18 August 1997. The opponents, John Richard Wells Handel and Peter Anthony Crymble, each began proceedings against the claimant alleging a contract and the breach of it in these terms: "In January 1992 the Defendant agreed that in consideration for the Plaintiffs giving evidence and providing material to the Independent Commission against Corruption the defendant would take no steps in relation to any alleged breaches of statutory or other duty committed by the plaintiff but contrary to the terms of this agreement the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from its service." Each plaintiff claimed to have suffered loss and damage as a result of the breach of contract particulars of which were: "Tn dismissing the Plaintiff from its service the Defendant was in breach of an implied term of the contract that the Plaintiff would remain in its service for so long as he as able to perform duties of the type required of him by the Defendant." Each opponent also made an estoppel claim in the following terms: "Tn the alternative the Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the course of action undertaken by the Defendant, the Defendant is estopped from acting in any alleged right to dismiss the Plaintiff." The claimant applied successfully to Master Greenwood to have each proceedings summarily dismissed. The opponents appealed. Finnane AJ allowed the appeals. The claimant seeks leave to appeal. At an early stage during the hearing of the applications it emerged that the proceedings involved matters covered by s78B of the Judiciary Act 1903. Accordingly the applications were stood over to enable notices to be given to the Attorneys General of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. However, before adjourning the claimant completed its argument on the merits of the applications. Material now before the Court shows that notices to the Attorneys General have been duly given and responses received. None wishes to intervene at this stage. In the circumstances of this case it is undesirable that the Court express any view about the evidence or the merits or otherwise of the claimant's case. Suffice it to say we are not persuaded that these are cases in which leave to appeal, with the ultimate object of seeking to persuade this Court that the proceedings should be summarily dismissed, should be granted. The applications are dismissed with costs. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Counsel for the claimant: Paul S Jones Solicitors for the claimant: Minter Ellison Counsel for the opponents: C J Birch Solicitor for the opponents: Leitch Hasson & Dent