Civil Case (Criminal Appeal) 38177-12-12 Moti Navon v. Radio A-Shams Ltd. - part 11

"In a long series of judgments, it has been held that the cause of action is a set of facts which, if proven, may entitle the plaintiff to the requested relief.  The test that determines whether a claim reveals a cause of action is as follows: "The case of the claim reveals a cause, if the plaintiff, assuming that he proves the facts included in his claim, will be entitled to receive the relief requested by him (Civil Appeal 109/49 Engineering and Industrial Company in Tax Appeal v.  Mizrah Insurance Service, IsrSC 5 1585, 1591; Civil Appeal Authority 9801/05 Estate of the late Ezra Harel v.  Leumi Pia Mutual Fund Management Company in Tax Appeal [published in Nevo, 26/2/06]; Uri Goren, Civil Procedure Issues, 171 (Tenth Edition, 2009).  The question of the existence of a cause of action does not directly relate to the evidence that will be presented at trial.  The examination of the existence of a cause of action is done solely on the basis of what is stated in the statement of claim (Civil Appeal Authority 3312/04 Assurances General de France v.  Official Receiver in his capacity as liquidator of the Bank of North America, paragraph 11 of the judgment [published in Nevo, October 26, 2005].  Hence, the dismissal of an action in limine due to the absence of a cause of action will be done in a place where it is clear and apparent on the face of things that the plaintiff has no chance of obtaining the requested remedy.  When we examine a motion to dismiss a lawsuit in limine, we must 'clear' our paths between conflicting interests - not only between the parties, but also in terms of judicial policy.  On the one hand, the administration of justice requires the opening of the gates of justice; On the other hand, justice is also the prevention of frivolous proceedings, harassment of the opposing parties, and overloading the court's calendar.  Hence the necessary caution (Civil Appeal 5634/05 Tzukit HaCarmel Projects in a Tax Appeal v.  Micha Zach General Contracting Company in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo, 4/6/07]).  Therefore, the delicate balance requires us to act with extreme caution before dismissing a claim for lack of cause...  that the deletion deprives the plaintiff of his right to bring his case, as claimed, before the court; Therefore, where there is a possibility, even a slim one, that the plaintiff will receive the relief he has demanded, the gates of justice are not closed to him..." (Civil Appeal Authority 1383/07 Shimon Sarfati Company in Tax Appeal v.  Shtulim Moshav Workers for Cooperative Settlement in Tax Appeal [Published in Nevo, April 14, 2010])."