A court that narrows the focus of an interlocutory hearing — by discouraging submissions on procedural history or separating issues — must not then determine the application on the basis of matters on which the affected party has not been given a fair opportunity to be heard. Where a court decides to deal with both the threshold question (whether to reopen) and the merits simultaneously, it must clearly indicate this expanded scope to the parties. The complexity of a claim is not, of itself, a reason to refuse leave to amend; the relevant considerations are delay, prejudice, and the availability of equivalent alternative remedies.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.