While the Respondent argued that the decision to proceed by special case was a discretionary one to which deference was owed, the Appellants argued that the special case was not appropriate because: the questions
posed in the special case
rested on a hypothetical assumption that the agreements were valid; necessary facts were not included and not all the facts were agreed
upon by the parties; and the parties did not sign the statement of special case as required by Rule 9 - 3 (3)(c).