What is a restraining order?
A restraining order is a very unusual order whose sole purpose is to prevent another person or entity from filing a lawsuit. As is known, the right of access to the courts is a fundamental right and therefore this right will be denied in very rare cases. An example of a case in which a restraining order may be granted is when a party files countless lawsuits against another person or entity, and all of the lawsuits are Idle claims.
Sometimes there is no choice but to demand a restraining order because the opposing party's entire goal is to cause you financial damages. In other words, the same party who files frivolous lawsuits knows that their claims will be dismissed, but they also know that you will be forced to hire the services of a lawyer to deal with all the claims, and this may cost you significant amounts of money.
In what cases will a restraining order be issued?
This issue was discussed in the framework of Request for approval of a class action lawsuit שמתבררת בישראל בין חברות ישראליות וזרות (ת"צ 50307-11-20 בי. אם. אנד. בי. אל. קבוצת מסחר בע"מ נ' Yang Ming Marin Transport Corp). אם צו חוסם הוא דבר נדיר הרי שקבלת צו שכזה במסגרת הליך ייצוגי זהו מקרה נדיר עוד יותר.
The District Court ruled, among other things, as follows:
סעיף 75 לחוק בתי המשפט [נוסח משולב], התשמ"ד-1984 מקנה לבית המשפט סמכות כללית למתן סעדים, לרבות צווים: " … Order made, A do-not-do order, an execution order in kind and any other remedy, ככל שייראה לנכון בנסיבות שלפניו".
הפסיקה הכירה בכך שהתיבה "כל סעד אחר" מצביעה על כך שהמדובר ברשימה פתוחה, המאפשרת לבתי המשפט ליצור סעדים חדשים ולקבוע את אופן הפעלתם, ואכן בתי המשפט הוציאו מלפניהם צווים החוסמים את דרכו של מתדיין ספציפי לנקוט בהליכים משפטיים. הצווים ניתנים Personally Against the specific party (in Personam).
The practical meaning of the blocking order is a violation of the right of access to the courts, and in cases where a blocking order is sought against the conduct of proceedings in a foreign forum, as is requested in our case, this also constitutes a violation of the principle of respect for foreign courts.
The theoretical possibility of granting a restraining order, which Prevent a litigant from initiating proceedings in a foreign country, was first discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in רע"א 714/96 פריסקל נ' אורנשטיין, פ"ד מט(5) 759, (1996) (להלן: "The Freescale affair").
In the Friskell ruling, the Supreme Court outlined the considerations for exercising the court's discretion when issuing a blocking order, while clarifying that this is not a closed list:
First, it must be examined whether the opening of the foreign proceeding constitutes an attempt to harm the applicant for the order or to deprive him of a right to which he is entitled by law; second, whether the opening of the foreign proceeding was done for the purpose of threat or blackmail; third, whether the opening of the foreign proceeding violates fundamental and procedural principles of justice. Above all of these, there is the consideration of justice, which is determined according to the circumstances of the case.
Go out and learn; the authority to issue a restraining order is not in dispute, but the extreme and unique nature of the restraining order requires the court to be extra cautious in exercising the discretion vested in it in granting the order and to grant it only in rare and exceptionally rare cases (see: רע"א 778/03 אינטר-לאב בע"מ נ' Israel Bio Engineering Project, פ"ד נז(5) 769, 772 (2003)).
