The Court considered the proper test for the granting of a stay or an injunction which has the effect of preventing an otherwise valid measure or order from having effect pending trial, while the court is also attempting to determine a regime which is necessary to properly protect the interests of all parties pending the full trial. The underlying principle must be that the court should put in place a regime which minimises the overall risk of injustice and that underlying principle remains the same whether or not the court is considering whether to place a stay on a measure or to grant an injunction.  The court must act in all cases so as to minimise the risk of injustice and that same underlying principle applied in any application in the context of judicial review.

The entitlement of a country to exercise a significant measure of control, within the law, of its borders was an important aspect of public interest of any state. Therefore, a significant weight needed to be attached to the implementation of decisions made in the immigration process which are prima facie valid and a high weight should be placed on the need to respect orders and decisions in the immigration process unless and until they are found to be unlawful. However, the Court considered the possible injustice to an applicant is a factor which must also be given weight, independent of any additional consequences which may be said to flow from deportation on the facts of an individual case.

However, in the absence of any additional factors on either side, then the position of the Minister would win out. The default position was that an applicant will not be entitled to a stay or an injunction. It may be that on the facts on any individual case, there are further factors that can properly be taken into account on either side.

If an applicant could demonstrate that a deportation, even on a temporary basis, would cause more than the ordinary disruption in being removed from a country, such as a particular risk to the individual or a specific risk of irremediable damage then such facts, if they were sufficiently weighty, could readily tilt the balance in favour of the injunction or a stay. Where, on an arguable basis, the High Court was faced with a situation where there was a credible basis for suggesting a real risk of significant harm to the applicant if they were to be deported, it would require very weighty considerations indeed to displace the balance of justice on the facts of that case.

Also all due weight needed to be attached to the undesirability of disrupting family life involving children, where after a successful judicial review or any other process, the children might be allowed to remain in or return to Ireland. 

At the stage of deciding on whether to grant a stay or an injunction the court has to decide on where the least risk of injustice lies, and the weight to be attached to any such difficulties will necessarily depend on the facts of the case, and such difficulties are not necessarily decisive, but are one factor to be taken into account.

The strength of the case can be taken into account provided that the assessment of the strength of the case does not involve analysing disputed facts or dealing with complex issues of law.