Mr Hamilton QC. The questions that arise in this case, Your Honours, are the point of time at which it ought to be determined that the veteran was prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work within the meaning of s 23(1)(c) and the time at which it is relevant that the veteran ceased to engage in remunerative work or, that his incapacity therefore, for some other reason, arose within the meaning of s 23(3).

The opposing views ... are those of the Full Court that all questions under s 23(2) and (3) ... are to be determined as at the date of application, that is, the lodgment of the formal application document with the Department for consideration by the Commission. Our contention, Your Honours, is that the time at which the veteran was prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work or the time where the incapacity therefore, for some other reason, arose, is to be determined not at that date but as at the date the claimed incapacity arose.

[A]lthough the present tense is used throughout the section, it is, certainly in some of the contexts, used in the past-participial phrase, if I can call it that, 'is prevented from', to take one instance, Your Honours. In other words, the state of 'being prevented from ' refers both to your state at this point of time but it is a state that has continued throughout some passage of time and we say, Your Honours, that it should be viewed in that light and that one should look to the beginning of the period of time during which that state of being prevented continues, to determine all the various questions that fall under the heading.

[O]ur argument is that the words of the sections, taken together, are far from plain; that the contention that we put is available on the section and that once we get to that point the fact that it is beneficial legislation and that the applicant is plainly within the class intended to be benefited decides it in his fashion.

Mr Laurence QC. [W]e say to the Court that there is no relevant date. The Act does not say that there shall be a date at which these [criteria] are considered and it is our submission ... that this being beneficial legislation, if there is any doubt as to such matters as that, then they should be construed to the benefit of the veteran, the person to whom the Act is meant to have some benefit.

We say that [the Federal Court's] interpretation creates anomalies. ... Several instances have been given ... as to if he lodges his application too late or he might lodge it too early, but we would submit that those matters do not occur if it is interpreted in the beneficial manner which, we submit, it should be interpreted in.

[T]his question of incapacity preventing a veteran ... from working more than eight hours a week is one of the matters which has to be satisfied and also has to be established that he is suffering an economic loss but, again, he does not have to establish both of those at the same point of time. In other words, it is sufficient, in our respectful submission, that if it is proved by medical evidence or some other means that he is unable to work more than eight hours per week, and also that he can prove that that has caused him to suffer economic loss, not necessarily at the same time, and that such interpretation should be given because it is what the legislature intended. In other words, it was never the intention of the Parliament that a person who carries his injuries stoically and does not apply too early but waits until the last moment before endeavouring to establish his right, should not be penalised as against the person who has those injuries earlier and applies at the earliest possible time and finds it is perhaps a good opportunity of being able to retire on a TPI pension at an early age.

Mr Hilton. [I]n my submission, the ordinary natural meaning of these provisions, as the Federal Court held, is that a person must answer the description in each of the subparagraphs at the time the matter is being considered and it is not enough that he did so in the past but does not do so now, in my respectful submission, because it does use the word 'is'. ... [T]he fact that there may be difficult cases which are not the cases before the Court now, does not entitle the Court to depart from the ordinary natural meaning of the words used.

[A] fair reading of the separate subparagraphs indicate that they are cumulative requirements that need to be satisfied concurrently.

BRENNAN J. In the cases of Lucas v Repatriation Commission and Banovich v Repatriation Commission, we note that these appeals have caused us concern. After full consideration, however, we have come to the conclusion that special leave should be refused for the reason that the judgments in the Court below are not attended with sufficient doubt to justify the grant of special leave. Special leave is refused accordingly.