Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T18:54:13.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interlocutory Relief Against the State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Ernst Livneh
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Legislation
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 1974 , pp. 121 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1958) 12 L.S.I. 138.

2 [1950] 1 All E.R. 591.

3 [1962] Ch. 784, 790.

4 Zamir, The Declaratory Judgment (1962) 310.

5 Zamir mentions (Ibid., p. 309–10) that no English case is known in which an interlocutory declaration was made, so that the question “remains open”.

6 Cf. Zamir, Ibid.

7 (1) Elyadin v. State of Israel (1959) 13 P.D. 1165; (2) A'alyan v. Housing Division (1961) 15 P.D. 455; (3) Agai v. Minister of Agriculture (1970) (1) 24 P.D. 127; (4) X. v. Minister of Defence (1970) (I) 24 P.D. 365; (5) Zakai v. Minister of Housing (1970) (II) 24 P.D. 35.

8 The Courts Law, 1957, sec. 7(b) (2) ((1957) 11 L.S.I. 157).

9 In a recent case (Agai—see supra n. 7) the applicant combined two innovations: he applied to the High Court instead of to the ordinary courts and asked for an order declaratory of his alleged right; but his application suffered the same fate as the others. On the other hand, in Simhi v. Civil Service Commissioner ((1968) (I) 22 P.D. 673) one of the reasons for acceding to the matter in the High Court of Justice was the chance of giving the petitioners relief equivalent to an injunction.

10 See Agai v. Minister of Agriculture and X v. Minister of Defence (supra n. 7) at p. 129 B and p. 369 C respectively.

11 [1970–71] 2 Labour Court Reports 58.

12 (1969) 25 L.S.I. 76.

13 Interpretation Ordinance (New Version), sec. 42.

14 [1970–71] 2 Labour Courts Reports paras. 8–9, p. 69.

15 Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung (Administrative Procedure Code) (1960) §§113 (1), 123, 170–172.

16 Ibid., §80.

17 Working Paper No. 40. “Remedies in Administrative Law (1971)” para. 48.

18 Ibid., paras. 93, 154 (6).

19 Ibid., para. 94.

20 Ibid., paras. 63–64. Note the position in Israel, where Mr. Gouldman justly deplores the absence of a similar right of direct action (not only of temporary suspension of measures), even against the Local Town Planning Commission: Legal Aspects of Town Planning in Israel (1966), 42.

21 Para. 93 of Working Paper no. 40.

22 Ibid., para. 93, 154(6).

23 The Courts Law, 1957, sec. 34.

24 The Labour Courts Law, sec. 29(a).

25 New Version, secs. 72–75.