The Defendant was granted Summary Judgment in respect of its Counterclaim. Substantial damages were awarded, and the Plaintiff sought a stay of the Judgment pending the Appeal of the Summary Judgment decision and the Trial of the original Claim. The Court outlined the test for a party to be granted a stay pursuant to Rule 1.4. Justice Wittmann stated that the test:

… requires the party applying for the stay to establish that there is an arguable issue, that it will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and that the balance of convenience between the parties favours the granting of a stay. In addition, the Court may grant a stay where exceptional circumstances exist and it is fit and just to do so.

There was no dispute that the remaining Claim raised serious or arguable issues. Wittmann J. held that the Plaintiff would be unable to continue to pursue their Claim if the Counterclaim Judgment was enforced, and therefore irreparable harm was established. For the same reason, His Lordship held that the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay until a Decision was rendered by the Court of Appeal. The Application was granted and the Counterclaim Judgment was stayed pending the results of the Appeal.