First, the Applicants argue that a decision in their case reflects on a broad legal problem: the law of a proceeding when a judgment is given in the absence of appearing, in circumstances in which the failure to appear was caused, according to the claim, due to the lack of representation. According to the Applicants' position, in this state of affairs, the courts must consider the arguments on their merits, despite the procedural failure.
Second, the Applicants claim that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed against the Registrar's decision. This is based on the District Court's own ruling, in its judgment on December 18, 2023, in which it ruled that the circumstances of the case should be applied to the Section 96(A) Law The Courts. According to the applicants, the judgment of this court inCivil Appeal Authority 46005-02-25 Refer the hearing back to the Registrar's inquiry, and not to the District Court.
Third, The Applicants claim that the District Court erred in refraining from addressing their arguments regarding their application for an extension of the time for filing an application for leave to appeal the Magistrate's Court's judgment, which was rejected by the Magistrate's Court (Registrar P. Neuwirth), on January 26, 2024, atCivil Appeal Authority 64552-12-23. According to the Applicants' position, if the District Court had examined their arguments regarding the extension of the deadline, it would have found that in the circumstances of the case, there is room to grant it, and in this way it would have allowed for a new hearing of their arguments against the Magistrate's Court's judgment.
In addition to these, the Applicants raise a variety of additional arguments: a claim against the attribution of the appeal filed against the registration decision to Applicant 2 only; arguing that a typographical error indicates that the District Court's judgment was based on factual errors; argued that the District Court made its determination on the basis of the view that the Applicants had disregarded the legal process due to their failure to appear for the Magistrate's Court hearing and that this determination had no basis; and the argument that the Registrar, and the District Court thereafter, should have counted the period of appeal against the judgment of the Magistrate's Court from the date of the Magistrate's Court's decision on the request for reconsideration that they submitted, and not from the date of the judgment.
- On January 19, 2026, the Applicants filed a motion to delay the execution of execution proceedings that are allegedly being conducted in parallel with the present proceeding.
Discussion and Decision
- After reviewing the application for leave to appeal, with its appendices, and the previous proceedings to which the applicants referred, I found that the application should be rejected, without requiring a response.
- In accordance with case law, the granting of leave to appeal in a "third incarnation" will be granted only in exceptional cases, which raise a fundamental legal question, which deviates from the interests of the parties, or when the rejection of the request for leave to appeal will result in a miscarriage of justice (see, Mini-Many: Civil Appeals Authority 4605-11-24 Rajabi v. Shefferman, para. 18 [Nevo] (November 6, 2025); Civil Appeal Authority 60350-12-24 Reuven v. Oved, 9 [Nevo] (June 10, 2025); Civil Appeal Authority 23485-06-25 Ankava v. Beit Aviv inTax Appeal v. Fleischer, para. 8 [Nevo] (October 15, 2025)). I do not believe that the application before me is one of those exceptional cases.
- Despite the attempt to give their arguments a fundamental touch, the Applicants' arguments are appealable, and do not deviate from their individual interests.
The only argument presented by the Applicants as deviating from their private interest, If their argument had been here, the court would have been obligated to treat their omissions differently, since they were Lack of representation. However, in this context, it has already been ruled that: "A litigant who manages his own case [...] cannot be entitled to more privilege than a party who hires a lawyer for him" (Civil Appeal 518/78 And there is N and Hva, IsrSC 33(3) 134, 137 (1979)); See also: Civil Appeal Authority 2429/22 Baruchim N'Genius]Nevo] (10.4.2022)). The various courts, in the many proceedings that embraced the dispute at hand, applied the civil procedure In accordance with the law. The Magistrate's Court was even right to annul its judgment with respect to Applicant 2, in view of the mistake that resulted in his failure to appear, on condition that Applicant 2 deposit the sum specified in the decision (ILS 10,000) into the court's coffers. Such a deposit was not made, and an appeal against the decision was not filed on the date prescribed by law. Accordingly, the Magistrate's Court's ruling became conclusive. For this, the applicants have nothing to complain about except themselves.
- More than necessary, I will note that I did not find any substance in the Applicants' arguments, even on the merits: from a review of the reasoned judgment of the District Court, it is clear that its judgment was not based on the Applicants' failure to appear before the Magistrate's Court (as claimed by the Applicants), but was explicitly based on the delay in filing the appeal against the Magistrate's Court's judgment. In this context, there is no reason to intervene in the conclusion of the District Court, and the record before it, that the deadline for filing the appeal should be counted from the day on which Applicant 2 found out about the Magistrate's Court's judgment. As detailed there, the filing of motions to annul the judgment and for reconsideration does not extend the date for filing the appeal, which is counted from the date of the judgment.
In addition to the aforesaid, I do not believe that the marginal typographical error in the judgment of the District Court is sufficient to impair its conclusion regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The District Court's failure to address the Applicants' argument regarding their request for an extension of time is also justified: the Applicants' appeal before the District Court dealt with the registration decision of October 25, 2023 onCivil Appeal 61228-07-23, and not in its decision of January 26, 2024 onCivil Appeal Authority 64552-12-23 (for which no appeal was filed).
- For the sake of completeness, I will briefly dwell on the argument of jurisdiction raised by the applicants, since it occupied this court in two proceedings (High Court of Justice 4184/24; Judge Amit, Judge Y. Willner, and myself); and Civil Appeal Authority 46005-02-25; Vice President v. Sohlberg, Justice D. Mintz, and Justice G. Kanfi-Steinitz):
In the Applicants' position, the judgment of this Court according to which the proceeding would be returned to the District Court was misunderstood. According to them, the rehearing should have taken place before the Registrar Neubert v., and not before the judge T. Bar-Asher As part of an appeal against the Registrar's decision. As already noted above, and as clarified below, this is not the case. Due to the complexity of the proceedings, I will discuss the sequence of events: