[...]
(5) Foreclosure of assets, delay of exit from the country, guarantee of the production of assets, appointment of a receiver, a valid and non-executive order.
- In its decision, the court examined whether "arbitration" is taking place as required by section 16(a)(5) of the Law, and in doing so, it addressed at length the question of appointing an arbitrator in accordance with the mechanism set out in the arbitration agreement. When he found that no arbitrator had been appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement, he ruled that no arbitration had taken place and that in such a situation "even the motions under section 16 have no basis". However, as has already been clarified in case law, the court is given powers by virtue of section 16(a) of the law from the moment there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there is no need for an actual arbitration proceeding, since the court is also authorized to grant relief by virtue of section 16 of the law even before an arbitrator is appointed by the parties (see, for example: Civil Appeal Authority 8613/10 Aviation Funds in Tax Appeal v. JSC AEROAVIT AIRLINES, PARA. 30 [NEVO] (11.10.2012); Civil Appeal Authority 9389/06 Advanced Road Systems in Tax Appeal v. T. S-Formula Telecom Solutions Ltd., paragraph 29 [Nevo] (October 14, 2009); Civil Appeal Authority 102/88 Silver Goose Delicacies in Tax Appeal v. Cent or S.A.R.L., IsrSC 42(3) 201, 206 (August 31, 1988)). In the circumstances of the present case, there is no dispute that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, and this is therefore sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction by virtue of section 16(a)(5) of the Law.
- Where a request for temporary relief is filed under section 16 of the Law, the court must examine it in accordance with the accepted criteria, i.e., examine the chances of the claim and the balance of convenience, along with considerations of honesty, justice and good faith of the person requesting the relief (see, for example: Civil Appeal Authority 6178/20 Aharon v. Clotilde, paragraph 7 [Nevo] (September 7, 2020) (hereinafter: the Aharon case); Civil Appeal Authority 9196/20 Benny v. Ziv, para. 7 [Nevo] (December 30, 2020); Uri Goren Arbitration 533 (2018)). In this case, the District Court did not examine the request for interim relief in accordance with the tests detailed above. Therefore, prima facie, there was room to return the proceeding to him so that he could give his opinion to the required tests and decide accordingly on the application. However, I found that in the circumstances of the present case, the findings determined by the court are sufficient to decide the application on the merits of the matter even at this stage.
- As is well known, even where the balance between the chances of the claim and the balance of convenience will indicate the granting of temporary relief, the applicant's lack of good faith can tip the scales against him (Aharon, para. 7; Civil Appeal Authority 5915/24 Peled v. Aniam Moshav Ovdim for Cooperative Agricultural Settlement Ltd., para. 14 [Nevo] (August 12, 2024); Civil Appeal Authority 9065/23 A. Top Investments in a Tax Appeal v. Mercantile Discount Bank Ltd., para. 62 [Nevo] (January 3, 2024); Civil Appeal Authority 6658/09 Mul-T-Lock in Tax Appeal v. Rav Bariach (08) Industries Ltd., para. 14 [Nevo] (January 12, 2010). In this case, I accept the court's observation that there is a great deal of reason for the defect in the applicants' conduct, which indicates their lack of good faith.
- There is no dispute that before the proceedings before the District Court began, respondents 1-3 approached the Magistrate' s Court in Civil Case 48623-04-24 [Nevo]. In the framework of this proceeding, a temporary relief was requested and received to stop the construction work carried out by the applicants in the apartment - the same works that constituted the main reason for the applicants' eviction demand from their home. This demand was in turn at the heart of the proceeding that would be conducted before the District Court in the framework of the application for interim relief. In addition, in the same proceeding that took place in the Magistrate's Court, the applicants found it appropriate to argue at length on the merits of the matter that they are the owners of the apartment and that the agreement between the parties is a sale agreement and not a rental agreement. These arguments are the same arguments that were disputed between the parties even within the framework of the proceedings that took place in the District Court. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Applicants did not mention in the Magistrate's Court the existence of the proceeding that was conducted in the District Court in a manner that led to the granting of temporary relief on the basis of a factual basis. In view of the above, I found that even without discussing the other tests required in an application for interim relief, the application should be rejected due to the lack of good faith of the applicants for interim relief.
The request is denied. The Applicants will bear expenses in the sum of ILS 15,000 for both Respondents 1-3 (together) and Respondents 4-6 (together).