Stay cannot be granted on order for judgment as it was intended to be final and conclusive

Motion on notice - defendants seek a stay on the execution of earlier judgment of the President - President gave judgment in this case on the 17th July 2012 for the plaintiffs on their claim and made an order that the defendants pay the defendants €320,000 together with costs - also seek order joining these proceedings to other proceedings ("the separate proceedings") - defendants are plaintiffs in the separate proceedings and plaintiffs are first and third defendants - motion seeking stay in these proceedings comes on along with two other motions from the separate proceedings - Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926 - whether defendant entitled to stay on judgment made against him in these proceedings pending determination of separate proceedings - defendant in these proceedings says the separate proceedings amount to cross-claim - whether Court is functus officio - Court finds that it can only amend final order in instances: (a) where the slip rule applies; (b) where the wording of the order does not reflect the intention of the Court - Court finds that order of the President granting the plaintiff in these proceedings judgment was final and conclusive - President was aware of the nature of the arguments contained in the separate proceedings but did not give stay - Court cannot now vary order in circumstances where there has been no slip or indication that the form of the said order does not reflect the intention of the President - accordingly, Court refuses to grant stay.