In any event, I am writing this decision, which requires thinking, gathering material, organizing the structure of the decision and actually writing it, during the summer recess of the courts, for the reasons explained above. The letter of the applicants' counsel does not have the power to expedite the decision, more than the typing time allotted to me during the summer recess of the courts. (My requests to hire a typist beyond 3:30 p.m. were rejected, on the grounds that the court administration prohibits the employment of typists beyond this hour, as overtime, during the recess, despite my desire to dedicate entire days, including afternoons and evenings, to finalize decisions and rulings that await their turn).
The Motion for Contempt of Court
- In paragraph 9 above, I have quoted in full the arbitrator's order, which ordered the defendant (the respondent) to give an affidavit regarding full and accurate accounts and to attach references to it.
- There is no dispute that the respondent did not comply with this order of the arbitrator, which is part of the arbitrator's judgment, which was approved in the framework of the judgment of this court.
- The request is based on Section 6(1) To the Ordinance Contempt of courtThis is what he says:
"The Supreme Court, a special court established in accordance with Article 55 of the King's Order in Council for the Land of Israel, 1922, the District Court and the Magistrate's Court, shall have the power to compel a person by fine or imprisonment to obey any order given by them and the commandment to do any act or to prohibit the doing of any act."
- The hearing in this contempt of court case (Miscellaneous Applications Civil 8189/07), took place in conjunction with the hearing of the application for the appointment of a receiver. Therefore, the applicants met the requirements of Section 6(2) to the Contempt of Court Ordinance, which states:
"Awarrant imposing a fine or imprisonment shall be issued unless the convertor is summoned to appear and responds to the summons, or when he does not come of his own accord, he has been brought before the court in a seizure order in order to show a reason why such an order should not be issued against him."
- There is no dispute, because not only until the day the application is submitted In various civil applications 8189/07 The above, but also To this day The respondent did not perform what he was required to do under the arbitrator's award, and did not submit the affidavit of the accounts with the documentation and the references, as required by the arbitrator's award, which was approved by this court, before more than a year. The respondent knew that the decision in this case would be given, in the end, but, for his part, he did not bother to file the affidavit, and behaved as if there was no arbitral award and no judgment of this court confirming the arbitrator's award was given.
- Since it is not possible to force the execution of the affidavit by means of execution proceedings, the only effective way left under Israeli law to achieve the result of the execution of the judgment, as far as the submission of the affidavit is concerned, is through contempt of court proceedings (see also: paragraph 2.3 of the applicants' reply summaries).
- Indeed, the respondent's counsel did not deal with any of the applicants' arguments regarding contempt of court, and he did not even mention this matter in his summaries. Indeed, the applicants' counsel, Adv. Segal, commented on this in paragraph 2.1 of his response summaries, and therefore requested in paragraph 2.2 of the reply summaries, that I accept the request and force the respondent, by fine or imprisonment, to uphold the judgment.
- However, since the contempt of court proceeding may have punitive and criminal consequences, I saw fit to briefly present the legal situation.
- There is no need to bring a great deal of rulings on this matter, since the matter is known, in essence. I chose to quote one of the first rulings handed down by Justice (later President) Prof. Aharon Barak on this issue, in which he analyzes - in his analytical method - the differences between the methods of enforcement and punishment of a judicial order that is not monetary (in that case, the subject of the order was visits by a daughter to her father, and the question was, what procedure should be taken against the mother, who does not allow such visits).
And this is what Justice Barak said, referring to the contempt of court (Criminal Appeal 519/82 Yedida Greenberg v. State of Israel, IsrSC 37(2) 187, paragraph 6, at p. 191, opposite letter E - p. 192, opposite letter A):