Systemic considerations
- A judgment was "written" three times:
The first writing is intended to adapt the judgment to past precedents. This is the basis of this decision, since, as explained at length above, the Supreme Court's ruling, and the interpretation of Regulation 388 of the SDA Regulations, and all the more so today, in the constitutional era, all support the conclusion I have reached, namely: granting the applicants' request to appoint a receiver.
The second writing focuses entirely on the specific circumstances and the facts of the case before me. Sometimes, there is room to deviate from past precedents in order to do justice in the concrete case. In the case before me, justice requires that the request for the appointment of a receiver be granted, and therefore the second writing of the judgment also leads to the same result.
The third writing is forward-looking; in other words, the person who writes the judgment must see in his mind the implications of the judgment, and the use that will be made in the future of that judgment, and especially the legal rules set forth therein, and that a party will try to persuade - at any future date - that the same legal rules that were set out in the judgment you wrote will apply in relation to it as well.
- The third aforementioned aspect is what caused me to hesitate for quite some time, and it (together with the lack of a permanent typist) led to the fact that this decision was written in recess, and not close to hearing the parties and receiving the summaries and supplements.
- In a judgment Roth (Name, paragraph 15, p. 116, opposite letter G - p. 117, opposite letter A), President Shamgar quotes an article by the President of the Tel Aviv District Court, Hannah Avnor, "Receiver under Regulation 264 [Today: Regulation 388]", The Attorney, vol. 33 (1940-1981), p. 366, at p. 375, which emphasizes the practical difficulty in the functioning of a receiver, who is subject to constant supervision by the court, when it demonstrates that in relation to a single case, "The Supreme Court concluded on this matter [Appointment of the Receiver - My Addendum - M.D.] His work with the ruling. And what happened next? The District Court's case grew and reached huge proportions - due to the many inquiries and requests for instructions and instructions from the court, by the receiver."
- President Shamgar, notes that, "I have not lost sight of the fact that the appointment of receivers after a judgment has been rendered may burden the courts due to the ongoing handling of various requests for instructions from the receivers." (פרשת Roth, at p. 116, at the top of paragraph 15, between the letters 6-7).
- President Shamgar's "solution", in the framework of outlining the court's considerations when deciding whether to appoint a receiver, after a judgment has been rendered, relates to three issues (I have quoted above the summary of the matter, as summarized by President Uri Goren, in his book; see: paragraph 61 above):
The first is the limitation of the time period of the receivership order, when reports of the receiver will be brought before the court, which will decide whether to extend the appointment, or to transfer the matter to the Execution Office (Roth Case, ibid., at p. 117, between the letters C-E).