The principles applicable to the grant of a stay were conveniently summarised by Gleeson JA in Lawrence v Gunner  NSWCA 322 as follows:
“11 A successful party is prima facie entitled to the fruits of his or her judgment, but a stay may be granted where an applicant demonstrates an appropriate case to warrant the exercise of discretion in its favour. The mere filing of the appeal is insufficient, of itself, to demonstrate such a case. Usually it is demonstrated by showing that there are arguable grounds of appeal and that there is a risk that if money is paid it will be unable to be recovered if the appeal succeeds, or by demonstrating that unless a stay is granted the appeal will be rendered nugatory: TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Antoniadis [No 2]  NSWCA 104; 48 NSWLR 381 at . The Court will weigh considerations such as the balance of convenience and the competing rights of the parties.
12 It is for the applicant to demonstrate a proper basis for a stay that will be fair as between the respective interests of the parties: see Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd at 694; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak  NSWCA 130 at .
13 It is appropriate to consider first whether the appeal raises a serious question to be tried, in the sense of arguable grounds, and if so, where the balance of convenience lies: Kalifair at ; Vaughan v Dawson  NSWCA 169 at  (Campbell JA).”
- As Gleeson JA indicated, it is appropriate to first consider whether the appellant has arguable grounds of appeal. A detailed examination of the merits of the appeal is neither necessary nor appropriate. Accordingly, I make only the following brief observations concerning Boral’s appeal.