Judgment: Whether a judge who conducted an FDR appointment in protracted financial remedy proceedings could later hear applications in relation to the substantive order made in those same proceedings. The hearing was well under way when the husband reminded Holman J of the earlier FDR appointment. Both parties urged the judge to waive the rule, making reference to the overriding objective. He held that any waiver would run totally contrary to the absolute prohibition that the rule currently provides, and brought the hearing to a complete halt. It would have to be heard from scratch before another judge.