The Court dismissed the application for a stay of execution pending appeal brought by the first applicant (a corporate borrower), finding that the proposed appeal based on apprehended bias was not arguable because the trial judge's comments about the appellants' motives in seeking an adjournment had no relevant connection to the substantive issues to be determined and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. A stay was granted in respect of the second applicant (a guarantor) on the basis that the judgment against him was already worthless due to his lack of assets, meaning the respondent would suffer no relevant prejudice from the stay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.