A court retains jurisdiction to deal with an unresolved interlocutory application after the substantive proceeding has been finalised; there is no hard and fast rule that an interlocutory application cannot be continued in those circumstances. Where a judge expresses concluded views on a contested issue without hearing submissions from a party, this constitutes prejudgment requiring a new hearing before a different judge, even if the prejudged conclusion was correct.
The full text is available to signed-in members.