Civil Appeal Authority 6607/19 State of Israel – Israel Police v. Moti Yakubov

Judgment

Justice N.  Hendel:

At the intersection of substantive jurisdiction, there are three paths that lead to three different courts - The Court for Administrative Affairs, the Labor Court and the Magistrate's Court.  In what direction should the plaintiff turn? Who has the authority to hear a police officer's claim for compensation for various damages allegedly caused to him as a result of the breach of the employment agreement with him and his dismissal? In this application for leave to appeal, we must place a clear sign at the intersection in order to direct traffic to the legally competent court.

Background

1. We have before us a request for leave to appeal on behalf of the State against the decision of the Jerusalem District Court (Civil Appeal Authority 26673-04-19 [published in Nevo] by the Honorable Judge M. Bar-Am) which rejected an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court (Civil Case 67609-07-17, [published in Nevo] The Honorable Judge   Azoulay).  within the framework of which the state's request to dismiss the respondent's claim in limine was denied.

The respondent enlisted in the police and served there for five years in various positions.  After this period, it was decided to terminate his employment with the police, and he was dismissed from the service.  As a result, the respondent approached the Magistrate's Court in a lawsuit, the causes of which he defined as torts and contracts.  In this lawsuit, he demanded financial compensation resulting from the breach of the agreement between him and the police, as well as damages caused to him as a result of defects in the process of recruitment, training, and dismissal.  In response, the state filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in limine due to lack of jurisdiction.  The motion was rejected and it was held that the Magistrate's Court is authorized to hear the claim since it is a claim that does not seek the annulment of the administrative decision on dismissal, but rather a monetary claim in an amount within the Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction.  Therefore, it was held that the respondent was entitled not to file the claim with the Administrative Affairs Court and to bring the issue of the alleged administrative defect to the Magistrate's Court by way of indirect assault.  An application for leave to appeal the decision to the District Court was rejected, while adopting the reasons of the first and broader instances in their hearing.  Hence the request before me.