With regard to the granting of a partial payment order, the court ruled that the issuance of an order for the existence of a monetary charge violates the purpose set out in section 203 of the Municipalities Ordinance. The court referred to the criteria that the court must consider alongside the individual considerations of justice when deciding on the granting of the order, as follows:
"Hence, the considerations that the court must consider in a lawsuit in which the granting of such a partial subsistence order is requested or in which payment of 'proper wages' is requested for a service or work performed. Similar to the ruling of President E. Barak in the Zagori case, I do not believe that it should be determined that the granting of a partial subsistence order or a proper wage ruling necessarily contradicts the purpose underlying section 232 of the order and the basis of section 203 of the Municipalities Ordinance. The granting of a partial subsistence order or the award of proper wages as aforesaid must be done with a balance between the various purposes that the court must consider in exercising its discretion under section 31 of the Contracts Law. As described at length in the Zagori case and in the Vehicle House case, these are general purposes that seek to deter parties from entering into illegal contracts (and in this case, contrary to section 232 of the order), the specific purpose of section 232 of the order that seeks to protect public funds, and individual considerations of justice between the parties.
The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that the determination of whether to instruct an authority to partially fulfill its financial obligation will be made taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case. As part of the exercise of discretion, the court will give its opinion to the good faith of the parties and the extent of their guilt in the illegal engagement, to the conduct of the parties and to the background to the conclusion of the agreement."