The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated the existence of arguable points in the intended appeal, including whether she was properly found liable for fraud and whether the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction. The Court further held that, given the applicant's long-term occupation of the suit property as her family home, eviction prior to the determination of the appeal would cause irreparable harm and render the appeal nugatory. The Court concluded that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo by granting a stay of proceedings and execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.