A commenter on a web site where my article "What are you saying?" appeared alerted readers that there is a judicial precedent on whether a declaration can be stayed. I did check the case he was referring to. I wish to thank him or her. He or she is right.
This is what the Judge said in that case:
"At the hearing of the motion, I asked (Counsel) who appeared for Mr (F) how it was possible to stay a declaration that had been made and duly entered.....
(Counsel) relied upon the difference between the language in Order (xx) rule (xx) ("The Court may stay execution of a judgment or order".) and the language of s. (xx) which simply refers to staying an order.
The distinction sought to be made was that the rule refers to execution while the section does not. There does not appear to be any relevant difference in the present context between a judgment and an order.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary relevantly defines "stay" as "suspension or postponement of a judicial proceeding, sentence or judgement". The Macquarie Dictionary speaks in terms of "to suspend or delay (proceedings, etc)". The same two dictionaries define the verb "to suspend" as including "to make temporarily inactive" and "to cease from operation for a time". In that sense it might be said that an order which had already taken effect could be suspended temporarily. However, once a declaration has been made, as here, that a deed is void it seems to me that the order itself has done its work. The legal rights or obligations of the parties which depended upon whether the deed had any effect or not are, subject to appeal, settled. In the absence of clerical or similar errors arising from a slip or accidental omission the order stands unless set aside on appeal.
I decline to make that order on the basis that, in my opinion, the power to do so does not exist."
(please note that words in brackets are mine and all emphasis are added by me).
So, there we go. I am right. Thanks to the commenter. I suppose Nizar's lawyers and Counsel know what to do.