ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Joseph (Yossi) Ashkenazi, Haim Machluf and Roy Schondorf, Herzog Fox & Neeman
A court order imposing an attachment will usually be given subject to the following conditions: • the alleged cause of action in the main claim is suf - ficiently supported by prima facie evidence; • the “balance of convenience” must be in favour of the applicant (ie, the harm to the applicant, should the order not be granted, outweighs the harm which may be caused to the respondent should the order be granted, and when relevant also outweighs the harm caused to a third party or to a public matter); • there is a reasonable concern that satisfying a judgment in the case would be substantially bur - densome should the order not be given; and • no other remedy of lesser harm could achieve the purpose of the attachment order. Throughout the years, these conditions have been consistently upheld in various Israeli court rulings, including cases such as 3403/01 David Ziza v Attorney Aryeh Yaakov (2002), 13227/08 ICM Air Conditioning Manufacturers Ltd v Uzi Avidan (Nevo, 8 August 2008), and 24068-10-18 Zohar Katz v Raz Agriculture Hold- ings and Development Ltd (Nevo, 28 January 2019). Furthermore, after a judgment is rendered, the judg - ment creditor may commence execution proceedings (see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments under “Judgment execution proceedings”). The judgment creditor may then request that the judgment debtor be summoned to a “financial ability investigation”, which would determine the debtor’s financial capability to satisfy the judgment. The judgment creditor may have a right to be present in this investigation, as well as to receive information regarding the debtor’s assets obtained during the investigation. 2. Domestic Judgments 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments Judgments under Israeli law may differ in the remedy that they grant the plaintiff, for example: • injunctions; • specific performance orders; • declaratory relief; and
• pecuniary relief. Furthermore, judgments may also differ in the length of time during which they remain in force. Below are a few examples. • Temporary ex parte order – first granted on an ex parte basis and based on prima facie evidence, a temporary ex parte order remains in force at least until after an inter partes hearing is held. • Interim order – often given on the basis of prima facie evidence in support of a plaintiff’s main claim, the court will normally issue said order after having heard both parties’ positions. Once issued, the order remains in force until further deliberation in the main claim. However, there are some excep - tions to this rule. For example, interim attachment orders and Anton Piller orders are typically issued ex parte, after which the defendant may file a motion to revoke the order. • Final judgment – given after deliberation in the main claim, and which remains in force indefinitely unless an appeal is filed and granted. Once the deadline to file an appeal has passed, a final judg - ment becomes unappealable. A judgment may be subject to a statute of limitations defence after 25 years if the creditor did not take any actions to advance its performance. 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments There are several options to enforce a domestic judg - ment in Israel. These can be divided into guarantee - ing the fulfilment of a judgment ex ante (before it is rendered) or acting to enforce the judgment ex post (after it is rendered). Before a final judgment is rendered, the plaintiff may move to receive an interim injunction order which would prohibit the defendant from performing any transaction relating to certain assets or funds during the proceedings or until further order of the court. These interim orders are obtained by filing the appro - priate motion to court, and may be granted ex parte as a temporary order until further deliberation. Prior to Final Judgment Interim injunction order
241 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook