The applicant sought a stay of a Master's order discharging a certificate of pending litigation over a development property pending appeal.
Applying the three‑part test for a stay, the court found the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm because the property was a commercial investment and any loss could be compensated through damages.
The court also held the balance of convenience favoured allowing the pending sale to a third‑party purchaser to proceed, noting the applicant’s weak claim to beneficial ownership and the uncertainty surrounding an alternative offer arranged by the applicant.
The motion for a stay was dismissed.
