Civil Appeal Authority 29470-02-26 B. Amin Motors Ltd. and 32 others v. Moshe Bar Shelton

Civil Appeal Authority 29470-02-26

Application for leave to appeal the decision of the Central-Lod District Court (Judge H.  Silash) from January 11, 2026 in a civil case 1883-07-23, in which a judgment rendered on January 4, 2026, in the absence of a defense, was annulled, while imposing costs on the respondent's shoulders in the sum of ILS 8,000.

The Applicant's mouth is full of arguments like a grenade against the annulment of the judgment.  However, the discretion of the trial court in annulling a judgment given ex parte is very broad, and quite a bit of ink has been spilled for this (see, for example: Civil Appeal Authority 4217/24 Shaul v.  Slice Provident Fund Ltd., paragraph 14 (August 11, 2024); Civil Appeal Authority 8570/21 Abuaziz v.  Adv. Arnon Ephraim, paragraph 12 (December 27, 2021) (hereinafter: the Abuaziz); Yaakov Shaked Civil Procedure 368-376 (4th ed., 2026) (hereinafter: Almond); For the considerations to which the court is required, see also: Civil Appeal Authority 22114-10-25 Haj v.  Ohila, paragraphs 17-18 (November 17, 2025); Civil Appeal Authority 13086-10-24 Nasser v.  Masarwa, paragraph 6 (December 12, 2024); Civil Appeal Authority 6730/22 Netanyahu v.  Alkalay, paragraph 10 (November 16, 2022); Civil Appeal Authority 1788/20 Abergel v.  Alcatraz Island Ltd., paragraph 8 (November 5, 2020)), and I did not see any reason to intervene in the District Court's decision, despite the Applicant's harsh arguments against the Respondent in this case.  Certainly where the court has considered all the considerations and issues that are necessary for the matter and chose to prefer the clarification of the dispute on its merits rather than leaving the judgment in place.

However, the District Court's decision to charge the respondent with expenses in the sum of only ILS 8,000 raises a certain difficulty.  This is while the lawsuit filed against him stands at about ILS 50 million, and in light of the court's determination that his conduct amounted to abuse of the legal process and procedural bad faith.  In the words of the court: "It is impossible to get rid of the impression that the defendant [the respondent] wishes to hold the rope at both ends, when on the one hand he claims that the statement of defense was submitted by him, and on the other hand, that this is not a document that should be regarded as his statement of defense.  One cannot live with the other." In such a case, and without prejudice to the aforesaid regarding the decision to annul the judgment itself, I wonder if there was no room to award more significant legal expenses on the respondent's shoulders and to set weighty conditions for annulling the judgment.