Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the uabb domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1902
{"id":63010,"date":"2021-07-06T10:32:49","date_gmt":"2021-07-06T07:32:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawoffice.org.il\/%d7%97%d7%95%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%93%d7%a2%d7%aa-%d7%93%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%96%d7%a8-%d7%93%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%9d-%d7%90%d7%a4%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%94\/"},"modified":"2024-07-04T11:20:12","modified_gmt":"2024-07-04T08:20:12","slug":"south-african-legal-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfirmbackup_200125.k1uagm.ap-southeast-2.wpstaqhosting.com\/en\/south-african-legal-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"South-African Legal Opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"

There are issues on which the Israeli courts refer to foreign legal opinions<\/a>. A South-African legal opinion is referred to in cases involving labor law, real estate law, wills and inheritances, enforcement of foreign judgments, and more, relating to South-African law.<\/p>\n

Foreign Expert Legal Opinion – Labor Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

For example, in Choppy Sea Treading Ltd v Sivan Tabachnik (NLA 4372-11-16)<\/a>, the National Labor Court discussed a request to delay the execution of the Tel-Aviv regional court\u2019s judgment accepting the respondents\u2019 claim for work payment and other rights. The request was made by the owner of a small business in South Africa selling goods in kiosks, where the respondents worked.<\/p>\n

\"South-African<\/p>\n

The regional court had stated that, according to the business-owner\u2019s testament, the respondents did not receive paid vacation days or any payment whatsoever for days during which they did not work. Therefore, it was determined that each of the respondents is entitled to vacation pay, in accordance with the foreign legal opinion given by the South-African law expert on the matter.<\/p>\n

In the request filed with the National Labor Court it was argued that the judgment contained various errors justifying its annulment. Among other things, it was argued that the tribunal did not discuss the contention that the foreign legal expert opinion on which the judgment was based was invalid; according to the petitioners, the opinion does not apply to vacation pay for the specific type of work in question, on a percentage basis and given the situation of the respondents.<\/p>\n

Judge Leah Glicksman stated that the business owner did not contradict the foreign law expert regarding the 21 days of vacation to which workers are eligible in South Africa, did not submit a counter-opinion, and even admitted to not paying the respondents for the vacation days that they deserved.<\/p>\n

After examining all the allegations, it was concluded that there is room for a partial delay in the execution of the judgment.<\/p>\n

This case demonstrates the great importance of foreign law in Israeli courts and tribunals and shows that, if no foreign legal counter-opinion is brought before the court, it is not very likely that the allegations will be accepted.<\/p>\n

Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment<\/strong><\/h4>\n

When a request for enforcement of a foreign judgment<\/a> is submitted to the court, the court requests the opinion of a foreign law expert on whether the foreign judgment is enforceable in Israel, in accordance with the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law<\/a>, 5718-1958 (hereinafter: the Enforcement Law).<\/p>\n

In the legal opinion submitted to court, the law expert must examine whether the foreign judgment meets the following conditions of the Enforcement Law (Section 3):<\/p>\n