Caselaw

Basha (Jerusalem) 7150/07 S.A.D.R. Building Works Company Ltd. v. Victor Yona - part 8

July 31, 2008
Print

"The respondent wants to carry out that judgment.  It is true that he did not take formal steps to do so, such as opening a file with the Execution Office and sending a notice to the appellant, but immediately submitted his present application for the appointment of a receiver in accordance with Regulation 264 of the Civil Procedure Regulations [5723-1963 = Regulation 388 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984] - which is 'the execution of good faith'; and it is also true that in the past, courts of good conduct demanded that until they grant the creditor a remedy of good faith for the execution of a judgment, He must first prove to them that he has already taken his steps and made his efforts to carry it out in the usual way (see the words of Justice JESSEL, the keeper of the scrolls, quoted in Kerr's book on receivers, 10th edition, p.  47).  However, the courts are now no longer insisting on taking formal steps, where it stands to reason that these steps would not have produced a real result, even if they had been taken as required (KERR, ibid., at p.  163).  and here the appellant does not dispute that she herself has been abroad, since the judgment was rendered against her, in such a way that she cannot be summoned and interrogated (and prohibited) for the purpose of carrying out the judgment; As for the assets to which she is to be descended, she apparently has no other property other than her share in her late husband's inheritance, after she transferred her rights in her apartment to her current husband."

  1. Against the background of these facts, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant's appeal against the decision of the President on duty of the Tel Aviv District Court, who appointed a receiver, at the respondent's request, for the purpose of exercising the appellant's rights as an heir and for the fulfillment of her duties vis-à-vis the judgment against her.

Thus, the Supreme Court "grapples" with the appellant's arguments against the appointment of the said receiver (The Cohen-Reich case, ibid., para.  6, p.  94, between the letters C-Z):

Previous part1...78
9...47Next part