At a later stage, the plaintiffs filed a second application with the Tel Aviv District Court for the appointment of a receiver, in which, instead of relying on the agreement between the parties, they relied on the fact that they were entitled to participate in the profits derived from the patent (ibid., at p. 417, opposite letter B).
The District Court granted the second request, and appointed a temporary receiver, who, according to the order of the District Court, was responsible for ensuring that the appellants' property, including the books, was not removed from the defendants' premises, and that the receiver would supervise the sale of the windows manufactured according to the patent, and would receive the proceeds.
- The Supreme Court relies on Civil Procedure Regulations (The British Mandate, which preceded theCivil Procedure Regulations, which were enacted by the Israeli Minister of Justice), which authorize the court to appoint a receiver of assets, if he deems it just and appropriate. Justice Dunkelblum notes that this remedy originates in English law, and explains that despite the broad language of the Hearing Regulation, it is "does not grant the court an unlimited right to appoint a receiver of assets, and this right should be limited to cases where such appointment is permitted according to the accepted principles of law and practice in England." (פרשת Thorg, Name, at p. 418, opposite the letter F).
- Immediately afterwards, the judge ruled that according to English law and practice, the courts will use the power given to them to appoint a receiver, in these three cases (the Thorg, Name, at p. 418, opposite the letter Z - p. 419, above):
“)a) To preserve the property, which is the subject of the dispute, while there is a dispute pending before the court;
(b) the preservation of property in danger of destruction, by persons to whom such property has been delivered, by law, or by persons who have a direct but only partial right to that property;