How has the court treated a request for additional evidence in the context of the trial?

Although open to them, neither counsel objected that as the trial had been concluded such a request was improper. Instead, both counsel eagerly facilitated the trial judge’s request for further evidence in answer to a list of questions he posed. Additional reports with new data and calculations were prepared by the expert economists. The experts responded to each other’s reports, and these were provided to the trial judge, in large part out of the desire to avoid a new trial to assess damages as happened in the Duncan v. Baddeley case. While the appellants’ trial counsel raised an objection to this process only after it had been largely completed, this objection was not pursued. He responded to the questions of the trial judge and by a letter dated June 18, 2001, over three months after the oral portion of the trial, he stated that he considered the case was now closed.