In response to the appellant's contentions, Mr. Casey Q.C., who appeared with Mr. Coish for the respondent, submitted that her Honour's construction of the sub-section was correct. It was his contention that the words in (2) (b) "the incapacity arising from the injury" clearly refer to the known incapacity which arises from the "serious injury" which in turn derives from the initial insult. He submitted that such incapacity cannot "become known" until such time as it becomes clear that the claimant is suffering from a "severe long-term impairment of bodily function". On the facts of this case, he continued, her Honour was correct in finding that the incapacity arising from an injury of that nature was not known until after 1 December 1992. He further contended that, although the overall purpose of the legislation might have been to cut down the number of claimants who could claim common law damages for work-related injuries, the purpose of was to "open the door" to claimants who had suffered "serious injuries" and that, accordingly, if there was some ambiguity in the construction of sub-section (2) (b) it ought to be construed liberally in favour of the worker ( ; at 384; (1960) 104 C.L.R. 328 at 335; ; at 679).