"Age 65 [is] not an irrelevant matter. It is common retiring age for employees and can be taken to reflect somewhat arbitrarily the community general understanding of the effect of age upon ability to undertake gainful employment. Thus ... 65 years is the age at which a male person qualifies for the grant of an age pension. It follows that, if nothing more were known of an applicant for a pension that that he was over the age of 65 years when the application for a pension was lodged, a tribunal would not be likely to be satisfied that the veteran was then suffering a loss of earnings by reason only of his war caused incapacity. Of course, that is only a hypothetical case and, invariably, more is known about the matter than that ... But the point is that a tribunal, especially a tribunal which deals with issues of this nature regularly, might reasonably proceed with the premise that applications for pensions made after that age would fail, unless the facts were disposed which tended to the conclusion that the veteran would still be continuing to undertake remunerative work, but for his war-caused incapacity.

"Of course, age 65 is not an age which is directly applicable to a person who is running his own business or who controls the affairs of a company which conducts the business in which he is engaged. But that is not to say age is irrelevant to such a person."

"Having regard to all the circumstances, including the fact that he would, at that time, be aged more than 77 years (a time when almost all workers have retired from remunerative employment), there is nothing in the reasons of the decision to lend any support for a conclusion that the circumstances of Mr Flentjar were so remarkable that he would, but for his war-caused disabilities, be engaged in remunerative work, unlike almost everybody else in the community."