Different categories of orders within a single judgment may properly be treated differently on a stay application, based on differing prospects of success and differing balance of convenience considerations. Where an appellant lacks liquid assets, enforcement of money orders will not materially advantage the respondent and a stay should be granted. Where a respondent proffers an undertaking to preserve chattels as bailee, the balance of convenience on possession orders substantially favours delivery to the respondent rather than a stay. An adjournment of a stay application may be granted where there is a real chance that legal representation will be obtained in the imminent future, particularly where a judge has referred the matter for pro bono assistance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.