The provisions of Regulation 95(d) of the Regulations define the considerations for granting temporary relief:
")d) In its decision whether to grant temporary relief, as well as in determining the type, scope and terms of the relief, the court shall consider, inter alia, the following considerations:
- the damage that may be caused to the applicant if the temporary relief is not granted, as opposed to the damage that may be caused to the respondent if the interim relief is granted, as well as damage that may be caused to another person or to a public interest;
- If there is no other remedy whose harm to the respondent is lighter, which achieves the purpose for which the interim relief was intended;
- the good faith of the parties, both in connection with the merits of the matter and in connection with the filing of the claim and the request for interim relief, and whether the applicant did not delay excessively in the circumstances of the matter in filing the statement of claim or filing the application for interim relief."
- According to Regulation 95(b), the receipt of relief is contingent upon proof of the existence of a cause of action and its necessity for the realization of the goal, and Regulation 95(d) enumerates the considerations examined when deciding on a request for temporary relief, including, inter alia, the balance of convenience - the damage expected to the applicant if the relief is not granted as opposed to the damage expected to the respondent if the relief is granted, as well as possible damage to another person or to the public interest. In addition, it is necessary to examine whether there is an alternative remedy that is less likely to harm the respondent, as well as the good faith of the parties and the question of whether the applicant delayed in filing the claim or application.
- The case law held that the chances of the proceeding and the balance of convenience are the two main considerations, and there is a "parallelism of forces" ratio between them. However, as a rule, the balance of convenience is given priority status. Alongside these, considerations of justice and honesty are considered, including good faith and delay (LCA 89201-07-26 Ariel Yosef Pelzig v. Meitav Finance Limited Partnership [Nevo] (August 30,2026)).
In this matter, the decision whether or not to grant temporary relief is left to the broad discretion of the trial court, and as a rule, the appellate court does not tend to interfere with the discretion of the regional court, except in exceptional cases in which the discretion was improperly exercised due to an error of law or facts (Application for Leave to Appeal (National) 11697-06-20 Yaakov Chai - Electric Company Ltd. [Nevo] (June 11,2020)).