Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

BRENNAN CJ, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ. Special leave was granted in this matter to consider the issue of the application of s 8(c) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). Since the grant of special leave, the Parliament has enacted the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Act 1996 (Cth) which inserts into Sched 1A of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) the provisions of par (4) of cl 105**[1]**. The construction and application of that provision is now in contest between the parties.

One aspect of the dispute relates to the operation of s 73 of the Constitution and s 37 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) upon par (4) of cl 105. The respondent has applied to the Court to revoke the grant of special leave. But the appellant declines to raise and argue the constitutional question on the respondent's application.

In those circumstances, the issue for the consideration of which special leave was granted has receded to the point where the matter no longer appears a suitable vehicle for determination of that issue. Accordingly, special leave is revoked.

[1] "Despite section 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, if a legal proceeding or an application for review of a decision:

(a) relates to, or otherwise involves, a provision of Part 5.2, 5.3 or 5.4 of this Act; and

(b) is not finally determined before 1 October 1997;

the proceeding or application must, if continued, be determined as if it had been instituted on that day, and this Act, as amended by Schedule 18 to the amending Act, applies to the proceeding or application accordingly."