15. The third method, which I propose to adopt, is that of the question of serious injury and the trial on liability and quantum being heard together. There is no statutory inhibition to the adoption of such a course and neither counsel suggested that it was inappropriate to take this approach. It is to be noted that there is no direction given by the legislature as to when and in what form the question of serious injury is to be determined. It is implicit from the scheme of Division 9A that it is to be determined in the Supreme Court.[4] Indeed, I think it is also implicit by reason of s 135BA(6) of the Act that, absent a compelling reason to do otherwise, this Court would deal with the issues of liability and quantum in the trial of the action and also with that of serious injury, bearing in mind that if the plaintiff fails to establish serious injury under s 134AB(38), then there will be no need to resolve the trial issues. This approach, it seems to me, is consistent with the legislative purpose[5] underlying s 135BA, namely, to ensure that terminally ill workers receive an expedited hearing of a serious injury application with the consequence that the trial is also heard as quickly as possible. This is to be contrasted to the prescriptive scheme under s 134AB where s 135BA does not apply.