However, since the judgment was given in the matter Anonymous The Model Compensation Law was enacted, which did not stand before the court, and the legal framework changed. Now there is a new normative source for awarding non-pharmacological compensation. On the contrary. The law was enacted in response to the determination that non-pharmaceutical damages should not be required by virtue of section 12 of the Torts Ordinance – "The judgment did not recognize the right to exemplary damages for a person whose liability derives solely from the ratification of acts of terror [...] The bill is intended to regulate the issue of determining exemplary compensation (known as 'punitive compensation') for victims of terrorism also in tort claims against those whose liability derives from the ratification of acts of terrorism" (Explanatory Notes to the Compensation for Victims of Terror (Exemplary Compensation) Bill, 5783-2023, H.H. 975, 142; see also Matter PAin paragraph 4 of my judgment). Therefore, the determination that it is not possible to obligate a "ratifier" under section 12 of the Torts Ordinance for punitive damages is limited to the normative sources that existed at the time. Since then, a new normative source, external to the Torts Ordinance, has been created, namely the Model Compensation Law, which allows for punitive damages to be required in certain circumstances.
- It has long been held that a change in the legal climate can reject in certain circumstances a claim in a court of law (Issachar Rosen-Zvi The Civil Procedure Reform: A Guide for the Perplexed 935 (Third Edition – Digital, 2025) (hereinafter: Rosen-Zvi); See and compare: Civil Appeal 5610/93 Zalesky v. Rishon LeZion Local Planning and Building Committee, IsrSC 51(1) 68, 98-99 (1997)). In more detail, what has been said is appropriate for its purpose Other Municipality Requests 475/84 Custodian of Enemy Property v. Faragion, IsrSC 34(2) 326, 331-332 (1989):
"In this regard, in my opinion, there is no act of the court that derives from the judgment given in other municipal applications 395/80. Before the court that heard the same matter, the aforementioned section 22A, which was added to the law only after its judgment was rendered, and subsection 22a(a) should be regarded as having retroactive applicability."