Where a trial judge, after reserving judgment, issues a memorandum identifying deficiencies in a party's case and then permits that party to reopen, the course taken is sufficiently novel and unusual to warrant immediate appellate review rather than deferral to any appeal from the final judgment. Prejudice from reopening a case after a lengthy trial is not confined to costs but extends to loss of forensic advantage, disruption, delay, and anxiety, which may amount to substantial injustice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.