Breen applied for a stay of execution of a judgment made to enforce an Adjudicator’s decision. Since the judgment was obtained, Breen had made searches at the Companies Registry which Breen argued established that Herschel has or may have no money to repay it where payment of the judgment sum was made and it was subsequently decided that the money was not due. The Judge held that the question to be considered was whether Herschel would be able to repay the money at the time when the moment for repayment might arise rather than at the time of the application. The test was therefore comparable to an application for security for costs. Breen had the burden of proof to establish that Herschel would not be able to repay the money should there be a judgment not to uphold the Adjudicator’s decision. There was no substantial difference between Herschel’s financial position at the time it entered into the contract with Breen than at the time of Breen’s application for a stay. At the time they entered into the contract, Herschel had been an unknown entity to Breen in financial terms but yet Breen proceeded to enter into it. As that was the company that Breen had chosen to contract with it would be wrong for Breen to take advantage of that position to impose a stay.