@DJBDJB no problem.
Judges, by and large, don't tend to interfere with how a party presents and runs its case. Sometimes after a witness has given evidence and been cross-examined, a Judge may want to ask a few questions purely to clarify something for their own benefit that is not controversial, but they certainly won't interject or take over to the point of unwarranted judicial interference. Often, if Judges wish to ask a few questions to clarify, they'll roll it by Counsel at the bar table (who invariably accede). They're too experienced to turn it into some sort of inquisitorial 'free-for-all' process.
In tribunal hearings, there's a bit more latitude for the Member hearing the matter, but the rules of evidence there are a lot more relaxed.The Judge won't start cross-examining a witness and if Counsel for a party aren't properly prepared or omit something then that's just bad luck. There's no duty on the Judge or the opponent to make good a case that fails either due to the evidence (or lack thereof) called and tendered not reaching the mark, or if the opposing Counsel is having an off day. Having said that, there is no question that each of the legal teams involved will know this matter, factually and legally, inside out.
When this case finishes, the judgment will be reserved. The Judge will have the pleadings, the transcript, the exhibits, the written submissions, their Bench note book, and their memory (and probably notes) of the witnesses' demeanour when they were in the box. Judges don't live in a vacuum though.
Cheers.
