It was further held that this ground for annulment is "a rare ground that will arise only when the arbitration award contradicts the basic principles and values of our system (see the Amidar case, at paragraph 24 of the judgment of Justice Y. Danziger), and a mere legal error should not be regarded as giving rise to this ground (ibid., in paragraph 17 of the judgment of Deputy President E. Rivlin). One must refrain from bearing the name of public policy in vain" [Civil Appeal Authority 7401/11 Boyes Drive Investments CC v. Yam Hayim, Tax Appeal (published in Nevo, November 27, 2011)].
Thus, even with regard to the cause of annulment by virtue of section 24(10) of the Arbitration Law, the case law held that it was "intended for fairly rare situations, such as, for example, if the principles of natural justice were violated, new facts were discovered that were not known to the applicant at the time of the arbitration and whose failure at the time was not dependent on the applicant, fraud was discovered that influenced the award of the arbitration award (cf. Civil Appeal 5717/91 Malibu Israel in Tax Appeal v. Az-Dez Prem (1973) Ltd., IsrSC 50(2) 685, 699-700), or there was no authority to resort to arbitration (Ottolenghi, at pp. 465-468)" [Civil Appeal Authority 5991/02 Ofra Goertzman v. Ruth Fried, 59(5) 1 (2004)].
- In our case, we are not dealing with special or extreme circumstances, nor are we dealing with questions with any broad implications that justify the annulment of the arbitral award, and the Applicant's arguments in relation to these grounds for annulment should be rejected.
- Conclusion -
The motion to annul the arbitration award is denied.
The Applicant will pay the Respondent expenses and attorney's fees in the total amount of ILS 5,000, within 30 days from the day the judgment is served on him.
The right to appeal the judgment to the National Labor Court in Jerusalem within 30 days of its submission.
Given today, July 16, 2018, in the absence of the parties.