¹ Sec. 2 of this Law provides: “A married woman shall be fully competent to own and deal with property as if she were unmarried; her rights in property acquired before her marriage shall not be affected by her marriage.”

² This statement should be qualified. Two or three District Courts decisions had preceded, but, although reported, they had passed unnoticed.

³ Berger v. Director of Estate Duty (1965) (II) 19 P.D. 240.

⁴ Bareli v. Director of Estate Duty (1969) (I) 23 P.D. 393. For details of this case see P.E., , “Digest of Recent Israeli Cases” (1970) 5 Is.L.R. 145Google Scholar.

⁵ Bricker v. Bricker (1966) (I) 20 P.D. 589.

⁶ (1970) (I) 24 P.D. 813.

⁷ One may have certain qualms whether this was the proper course to take. Since the notion of joint liability, accepted as it was by the judges, would apparently have led to the opposite result, was there really no way of making it the basis for the decision?

⁸ [1952] 2 All E.R. 863.

⁹ Including the latest ones: Ulrich v. Ulrich and Felton [1968] 1 All E.R. 67; Gissing v. Gissing [1969] 1 All E.R. 1043; and Pettitt v. Pettitt [1969] 2 All E.R. 385 (H.L.). It should be noted that Levi v. Goldberg was decided about a month before the decision of the House of Lords in Gissing v. Gissing [1970] 3 W.L.R. 255 was handed down.

¹⁰ Cf. Ginossar, , “Israel Law: Components and Trends” (1966) 1 Is.L.R. 380Google Scholar.

¹¹ With regard to this provision and its implications, cf. Weisman, , “The Land Law, 1969: A Critical Analysis” (1970) 5 Is.L.R. 379, 382CrossRefGoogle Scholaret seq.

¹² Hatza'ot Hok 1969 p. 333.

¹³ To this latter rule, however, the Bill contains an important proviso: for debts incurred by one spouse for providing the reasonable needs of the common household, both spouses shall be liable jointly and severally.

¹⁴ Such as Holland and West Germany.

¹⁵ Although that statute will of course again be interpreted and thereby further developed by the courts.

¹⁶ It should be noted that the Bill regulates the relations between the spouses with regard to all their assets and not only the matrimonial home which has attracted particular attention in English case law. On the rules and problems relating to the matrimonial home, both in England and Israel, as they presented themselves in 1957, cf. Shachor-Landau, , “Recent Developments in the Law of the Matrimonial Home in England and Israel” (1957) 6 I. & Comp.L.Q. 61, 65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Much has changed since!

¹⁷ In this regard, the discretion given to the judge by the new Israeli Law will be somewhat similar to that conferred by sec. 17 of the English Married Women's Property Act, 1882.

¹⁸ Cf. the Law Commission's Fourth Annual Report 1968–1969, p. 12, para. 50.

¹⁹ [1970] 3 W.L.R. 265–273.

²⁰ See the remarks of Viscount Dilhorn ibid., at 262 F and of Lord Diplock, at 266, F-H.

²¹ See Viscount Dilhorn ibid., at 262 H and Lord Diplock at 267 C.