Interim relief vs. temporary relief – what is the difference between them?

What is a temporary injunction and what is its purpose?

Interim relief is a relief that can be obtained before the lawsuit is filed or shortly after it is filed, or even during the proceedings of the lawsuit. And before receiving a verdict, Its purpose is to prevent irreversible damage to one of the parties or a situation in which the proceedings will be conducted in vain and at the end it will not be possible to enforce the judgment.

The purpose of the interim relief is explicitly defined in Regulation 94 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, which states as follows:

The purpose of the interim relief is to ensure a prima facie right during the legal process and the proper and effective conduct of the process or the proper execution of the judgment.

A common example of a situation where temporary relief can be obtained is when there is a concern that the defendant will abscond funds or assets (transfer them to a third party) so that after the judgment is received, it will not be possible to recover it. In these situations, temporary relief can be requested in the form of Temporary seizure order on bank accounts. If this interim relief is granted, the defendant will not be able to transfer the funds in his accounts to third parties until the date of receipt verdict, in which it will be decided whether the temporary order will continue to be valid or will be revoked.

What is the difference between temporary relief and temporary injunction?

In fact, a temporary interim relief is the preliminary stage of a provisional relief, and is relevant only to the period of time between the date the application is filed with the court and the date the court hears it (usually) in the presence of both parties. The purpose of a temporary interim relief is to prevent the opposing party from taking actions that would thwart the provisional relief.

We will illustrate this with an example: Shlomo and my father have a dispute over who owns an apartment. Shlomo wants to prevent my father from being able to sell the apartment until the court decides the lawsuit on its merits and determines who owns the apartment. If Shlomo does not act immediately, there is a concern that my father will sell the apartment before the lawsuit is decided and a verdict is given, and if this happens before a verdict is reached, Shlomo will not be able to do anything with the verdict.

In such a situation, Shlomo will immediately submit a request to the court for temporary interim relief and temporary relief until the date of the judgment, in the form of injunction, which will prevent my father from selling the apartment. Shlomo will submit the application unilaterally so that my father does not know that the application has been submitted, otherwise my father may sell the apartment immediately and even before a decision is made.

To the extent that Shlomo substantiates his request well and attaches an affidavit to it, the court may immediately order the granting of temporary temporary relief until the date of the hearing in which Avi will also participate. The mere granting of temporary temporary relief immediately and unilaterally will prevent Avi from being able to sell the apartment, at least until Shlomo and Avi arrive at the hearing to discuss the matter of the temporary relief until the end of the lawsuit.

If, at the conclusion of the hearing on the request for temporary relief, the judge orders the temporary relief to be revoked, theoretically my father will be able to sell the apartment. On the other hand, if the court determines that the temporary relief will remain in effect until the verdict is rendered, my father will not be able to sell the apartment.

Supreme Court במסגרת רע"א 8406/23 ע.ס.י לבניה תשתיות בע"מ נ' פקיד שומה ירושלים, קבע באילו מקרים בית המשפט עשוי להיעתר לבקשה לקבלת סעד זמני ארעי:

כאמור, המבקשת עתרה לקבלת סעד "זמני ארעי". תחולתו של סעד זמני ארעי הוא עד לקיומו של דיון בנושא הבקשה, ובהתאם השיקולים המנחים את בית המשפט בקבלת בקשה כזו הם "חשש סביר שהעיכוב שייגרם כתוצאה מקיום הדיון במעמד בעלי הדין או הבאת הבקשה לידיעת המשיב תסכל את מטרת הסעד הזמני או תגרום למבקש נזק חמור" (As per Regulation 97(a)).

Discussion in the presence of both parties

Another important difference is that the hearing on a temporary relief matter must, as a rule, be held in the presence of both parties. The exception to this rule is when the court believes that if the opposing party discovers the request, he will act to thwart the temporary relief, or if the court has examined the request and, in its opinion, has no basis or chance of being granted.

If the court considers a temporary relief ex parte If there is no fear that the opposing party will act to thwart the interim relief, or if the request is rejected without having been Discussion in the presence of both parties, it will be possible to submit Request for leave to appeal which may be accepted by the appellate court.

The Supreme Court, in the aforementioned ruling, ruled in this matter as follows:

As noted above, the applicant argued that the court should have held a hearing in the presence of the parties on the request for temporary relief; and since it did not do so, the case should be returned to it for the purpose of holding such a hearing. Indeed, the rule under Regulations 97(a) and 97(g) is that a request for interim relief must be heard in the presence of both parties. However, the court may, in exceptional cases where the request does not disclose grounds on its face, dismiss the request in the presence of one party, without holding a hearing in the presence of the parties and without even requesting the response of the opposing party. (ראו: רע"א 1556/21 עירון נ' שפירא בר-אור, פסקאות 20-11 [פורסם בנבו] (‏22.4.2021); רע"א 6455/23 פלונית נ' פלוני, פסקאות 16-15 [פורסם בנבו] (‏3.11.2023); רע"א 6830/15 ‏פלוני נ' פלונית, פסקאות 21-18 [פורסם בנבו] (‏12.1.2016)).

As a general rule – and so in this case as well – it would have been desirable for the court to hold a hearing in the presence of both parties before dismissing the application. However, despite the above, I do not believe that the applicant's application should be granted and the case should be returned to the lower court for the purpose of holding a hearing on the application – and this is because, as will be explained, after examining the arguments of both parties, I believe that the application for temporary relief should be dismissed. Under these circumstances, there is therefore no point or benefit in returning the hearing to the lower court and holding a new hearing on the application.

A request for temporary relief can be filed before filing a lawsuit.

Regulation 95(c) of the Civil Procedure Regulations allows for filing an application for interim relief or temporary interim relief even before filing a Claim, if it is urgently necessary. This regulation states as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of subregulation (b), The court may grant temporary or interim relief even before filing a claim if it is convinced that this is justified in the circumstances of the case, provided that the claim is filed within seven days from the date of the order or at any other time ordered by the court.

That is, if a request for interim relief was indeed filed before the lawsuit was filed, the lawsuit must be filed no later than seven days, and if the lawsuit is not filed even if interim relief was granted by the court, it will lapse. This matter is stipulated in Regulation 100(3), which states as follows:

Temporary relief will expire –

3. If the order was issued before the filing of the lawsuit and a statement of claim was not filed within seven days from the date of issuance of the order or on another date ordered by the court;

Regarding the possibility of receiving temporary remedies even before filing a lawsuit, the Supreme Court, in the aforementioned ruling, ruled as follows:

As noted above, the main purpose of interim relief is to ensure the existence of the main relief sought in the proceeding: Temporary relief will be granted in cases where the court believes that without such relief, there will be no benefit in the proceedings and it will not be possible to grant the request for the main relief. (ראו תקנה 94 לתקנות; רע"א 4491/22 יגאל ריאלטי בע"מ נ' מרדכי אביב מפעלי בניה בע"מ, פסקה 21 [פורסם בנבו] (‏2.8.2022) (להלן: עניין יגאל ריאלטי); עע"מ 10811/04 סורחי נ' משרד הפנים, פסקה 3 (12.1.2005); עע"מ 5176/22 ‏המועצה המקומית בנימינה גבעת עדה נ' המועצה הארצית לתכנון ובניה, פסקה 19 [פורסם בנבו] (‏27.12.2022)).

Therefore, as a general rule, in the absence of a main proceeding, there is no justification for granting temporary relief. (בר"מ 2743/19 פלוני נ' מנכ"ל רשות האוכלוסין וההגירה, פסקה 12 [פורסם בנבו] (‏16.1.2020); רע"א 258/90 משה כובשי – חברה לתובלה ותעבורה בע"מ נ' בנק הפועלים בע"מ, פסקה 2 [פורסם בנבו] (13.2.1990)).

As stated, the applicant filed the application for interim relief before the main statement of claim was filed. This is in accordance with Regulation 95(c) of the Regulations, which allows a party to file an application for interim relief even before the main statement of claim was filed, despite the fact that the interim relief sought is a derivative proceeding accompanying the main proceeding. The secondary legislator therefore recognized the time-limited possibility of filing a request for temporary relief before filing a main statement of claim due to the possible urgency in granting the relief – which was required even before the plaintiff had time to file the main statement of claim itself.

However, Regulation 95(c) does not eliminate the need for a main procedure, but rather provides a special extension for urgent cases. (ראו: רע"א 1741/16 מרק נ' ביטון, פסקה 2 [פורסם בנבו] (4.4.2016). יוער כי עניינה של החלטה זו, וכן ההחלטות המובאות בפסקה הבאה, בתקנה 363(א) לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשמ"ד-1984, שהיא המקבילה לתקנה 95(ג) לתקנות, הנדונה בענייננו).

These are therefore cases in which the court is required to intervene immediately to prevent the applicant from harm that would occur if his application were not granted, where the urgency justifies the specific delay in filing the main proceeding.

The request for interim relief opens a kind of independent proceeding (since there is no other proceeding at that time), but it will always be irrelevant to the future main proceeding, with its sole purpose, as stated, being to enable the granting of the relief sought in this future proceeding. (ראו והשוו: ע"א 2903/13 אינטרקולוני השקעות בע"מ נ' שקדי, פסקה 3 [פורסם בנבו] (30.6.2013); רע"א 5891/22 גנוסר נ' חברת החשמל לישראל בע"מ, פסקה 15 [פורסם בנבו] (18.12.2022); רע"א 9308/08 אלול נ' רביב, פסקה 5 [פורסם בנבו] (21.04.2009)).

החריגה הפרוצדורלית המאפשרת הגשת בקשה לסעד זמני לפני הגשת ההליך העיקרי, מותנית בכך שהמבקש ישלים את הגשת כתב הטענות העיקרי "בתוך שבעה ימים ממועד מתן הצו או בכל מועד אחר שעליו יורה בית המשפט" (כפי האמור בתקנה 95(ג)). זאת כאמור מאחר שהסעד הזמני נותר סעד נלווה להליך העיקרי, ויש לוודא כי הליך כזה אכן יוגש בהקדם לאחר הדיון בבקשה לסעד הזמני.

Accordingly, Regulation 100(3) of the Regulations also states that If the order was issued before the lawsuit was filed and a statement of claim was not filed within seven days of the date the order was issued or on another date ordered by the court, the temporary relief will expire.

In conclusion

Temporary remedies can be obtained even before the statement of claim is filed, but the condition is that the statement of claim must be filed no later than 7 days from the date of the order.

It is possible to obtain interim relief ex parte, and this is how things usually happen, because the purpose of interim relief is to prevent the opposing party from performing a certain action or to oblige him to perform a certain action, and if the opposing party knows that you have filed a request against him to receive interim relief, he may act to thwart them.

Common examples of temporary relief are: Order made, restraining order, seizure order, exit delay order.

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Interim Remedies