Since the Sports Law is a specific law, unlike the general provisions of the Arbitration Law, and it is even later than the Arbitration Law, its provisions prevail.
Similarly, in the Katz case, it was held that this should be seen as a statutory obligation to conduct arbitration proceedings, and that in such cases, the court has no jurisdiction over whether or not to delay the proceedings before it, and it must delay the proceedings and transfer the hearing to arbitration.
I did not find the plaintiff's reference to a later ruling, which states that the rule established in the Katz case has been changed, or that "cannot exist today" as he claims. On the contrary, in a ruling in Civil Appeal Authority 2186/12, Moshe Amar v. Maor Malikson and the Israel Football Association [May 20, 2013], the Supreme Court reverted to the same ruling, removing any doubts that might have existed up to that time, regarding the nature and scope of the disputes that should be referred to the arbitration institution for a decision.
- In my opinion, the same conclusion could have been reached by virtue of the agreement between the parties. However, since the plaintiff claimed that the agreement constitutes a "uniform agreement" and that according to him, the condition that determines the transfer of disputes to arbitration is a discriminatory condition, I find that in view of the above conclusion, there is no need to discuss this. Whether or not the agreement requires transfer to arbitration, this obligation exists as stated above under the law, and this is sufficient.
Conclusion
- The dispute between the plaintiff and the club, regarding the breach of the insurance obligation (if any) and the compensation due to the plaintiff as a result, will be heard before the Arbitration Institute of the Basketball Association. Therefore, I order the stay of the proceedings in this action, insofar as they relate to the claim against the club. The club is not required to file a statement of defense in the framework of this action.
The plaintiff must apply to the arbitration institution and file his claim against the club there.
- I charge the plaintiff with expenses and attorney's fees for filing this application in the sum of 1,500 ₪.
- The hearing scheduled in the case will take place on time, in the dispute between the plaintiff and the insurer, and only in that case.
Granted today, May 29, 2017, in the absence of the parties.