88 As to ground 7, I do not see, at least at this stage, how O 66 r 2(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court could assist the State. Nevertheless, I accept that it is at least reasonably arguable that the success on ground 7 will largely be dependent on any success on grounds 1 - 6. Even insofar as the judge had an additional ground for making the costs orders that she did, if the State succeeds on grounds 1 - 7, any residual capacity for the costs orders to be sustained on that other ground, would, at least reasonably arguably, need to be assessed in light of the State's (assumed) success otherwise on the appeal. Further, I accept the State's submission that the stay application does not relate to the costs orders. In the event that costs of the primary proceedings are agreed or assessed before the determination of the appeal, there will be an ascertained amount payable to Dr Cunningham and Ms Atoms in respect of costs. At that point in time, the State will be obliged to pay such amount, unless it seeks a stay in that regard. That, however, is a matter for another day.